Especially after the hold you've depended on has broken off?

The theory behind ''not chipping holds'' is that you ruin the rating of an established climb.But some areas have poor quality granite that has a tendency to crumble (chossy), so breakage is extremely common.Why is it wrong to chip holds in this case?

As a matter of fact, how do you rate a climb in unstable rock, where the difficulty changes changes over time?
This ethic makes sense in any established climbing area, and in any place where rock quality is at least decent.But let is say you're climbing hard dirt, which erodes with every rain.Then what?
john_climbs, you've hit the issue right on the head.Where is the line between ''cleaning'' and ''chipping''?A lot of potential new climbing areas are unsafe and need to be cleaned.l know of one abandoned quarry area that can not hardly be called a ''wilderness'' that needs to be ''preserved''.
dtewsacrificial, l understand and fully appreciate the ''ethics'' of rock climbing, and in fact there ARE places where there should be no climbing at all and just left alone.But there are a lot of grey areas and it is interesting to hear different opinions about that.
Rusty, I am one of those guys that love remote rock places, and for your information, I've not ever ''chipped'' a hold.I am just asking for opinions on this complicated subject. When does cleaning stop and deliberate chipping of holds begin? It is a judgement call.
Eric Kol, I've come to the same conclusion too about the use of bolts.Well placed bolts can save cracks from wear caused by protection.However, there is another school of thought that insists that nothing ''unnatural'' be left visible in the ''wilderness even though again it is a judgement call whether or not an area should be called a ''wilderness where it is not officially designated as one.
Quake 22, l think rock ratings have to be a little more fuzzy for climbs in poorer rock.As in, ''well, sort of 5.10 instead of ''5.10c, no higher no lower''.

It is really a personal decision whether or not to chip. l personally think it is wrong to chip holds because it shows a lack of vision, l mean, there is usually a way to get past a move, and if not, then move on to a different climb and give somebody else a chance. That is just my opinion. l am against chipping. l like keeping it natural.

As far as ratings, l think you simply have to re-rate a climb if a hold breaks.

You have it all wrong.

The ethic is ''leave no trace''. This means that u do not modify the environment, or at the very least apply this philosophy in the form of methods where u minimize ur impact on the environment. This is because u need to understand that the CLIFF IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL CLIMBING WALL. It is not just yours to enjoy. It is there for every climber to explore, every hiker to see, & all future climbers/hikers, & even people doing outdoors pursuits that may not even be invented yet. It belongs to everybody, & so therefore it should not be modified by any one, ten, or even a hundred individuals. You do not have the right to decide on what belongs to everybody.

In chossy areas where accidental breakage is common in the course of climbing, it can even be argued that by ''leave no trace,'' u should not be climbing there at all. It can very easily be argued that u have no right to engage in an activity that significantly accelerates the erosion of the natural environment, just as various agencies have banned ATVs & motorcycles from many trails/areas.

That line of argument aside, & somehow accepting that it is okay in some cases to accelerate erosion because it is unintentional (a weak justification at best), u can not justify INTENTIONAL erosion/modification/chipping with the already-questionable current circumstance that climbers accelerate erosion unintentionally.

It is like saying, ''well, people lose their wallets every day, so therefore it really does not make much difference if l steal a few, since the net effect already happens normally.'' That is what ur argument amounts to.

If you can not climb something without chipping holds or placing new bolts, then you should not be climbing there, or anywhere else for that matter. It should not matter if the rock is junk. Regarding the ''theory behind not chipping holds it is not just about ruining the rating of the climb. It is about forever altering something because you find it too difficult, thereby ruining the challenge for other climbers, not to mention defacing something that cannot be replaced.

l like the way in which u framed the question.and there can be grey areas on this issue if u r so inclined.

But l do belong to the no chip whatsoever school of thought.

To me this ethic is what has fueled an awsome generation of climbers willing to climb new ways & above & beyond, simply because they refuse to alter the rock.

l suppose putting a cam into a crack 100 times might alter the rock somewhat, but it is not a piton.

l suppose rotten granite by it very nature is changing from year to year, but l would not want to specifically or intentionally alter the rock..even if it were going to change on its own anyway.

the one exception l might have, is setting or drilling anchors. l have kicking & dragging come to belive that drilling bolts might ultimatly preserve a crag if people would be destoying it otherwise.

l think u would rate the climb as it was climbed first. Then the rating would change with the condition of the rock.either higher or lower.

Well, you could look at it as ''cleaning'' the route. But usually that is done by the first ascentionists. If it would not hold your weight, then l think it is fair game to be removed, because it is then a hazard.