Can You Make the Perfect Crevasse Rescue Anchor?

(This post may contain affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links and make a purchase, I’ll receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows us to continue to make videos like this. Thank you for the support!)

We likely all have seen some version of the disclaimer, “Climbing is an inherently dangerous activity…” on a climbing gym waiver or the packaging for a new piece of gear or some such.

Let’s linger in the work “inherently” for a moment. By the Oxford Dictionary definition, it means “in a permanent, essential, or characteristic way.” In other words, the danger cannot be divorced from the activity.

Is this true? It seems to me that it is. Gravity is an inevitability while we are bound within our planet’s atmosphere, and it is the fundamental to the challenge of climbing, even if we are risking short falls like with bouldering. Let’s take an extreme example of a sit-start boulder problem that is a traverse. You are maybe never more than a 60 centimeters off of the ground. Is the risk serious? Probably not. Is the risk zero? Again, probably not. Could a surprise fall from an awkward body position still lead to a jammed finger or wrist or ankle? Sure.

But moving away from the most low-risk climbing I can think of, it becomes much more obvious that injury, and even death, are all potential consequences that have a probability greater than zero. High altitude peaks, multi-pitch climbs, high-ball bouldering, trad climbing on removeable gear, all of these bring injury, severe injury, and death into the equation.

This, at its heart, is why I don’t think there are any “perfect” solutions in climbing that eliminates risk. No piece of gear, no strategy, and no technique can bring risk to zero.

It is that fundamental belief that brings about videos like this one. I’m not saying that it is a “problem,” that there is no perfect crevasse rescue anchor. What I am saying is that informed decision making with a more complete understanding of the tradeoff selections we are making is - in my mind - better than unthinkingly applying one technique to every situation. The former makes us agents in our own safety. The later means the situation is really driving the outcome.

There is a counter argument: knowing one technique that is “good enough” to be applied in most situations reduced the likelihood that you select the wrong technique by misinterpreting that it is the right technique for the circumstance we are facing.

I think the counter argument is very applicable to people just starting out. It can simply become confusing to have to master multiple techniques. But after a long enough time working with all of these various techniques and seeing myriad environmental circumstances, we have a strong incentive to leverage that experience we’ve gained. To not do so is to leave our capabilities at the same level they were when we were beginners.

So, I default towards taking on the responsibility of making judgement calls and selecting techniques to match to circumstances. And that starts with understanding the pros and cons of our selection of applicable techniques.