An Open Letter to Dan Briley

I actually left out talking about the singularly weak disagreement, And the posting of a private correspondence to gain sympathy and support for a side in this.
I was looking at the bigger picture not just the snap shot .
It Is a silly argument to those not climbing at that zone.

Some cliffs do need more fixed pro due to the foreseeable likely-hood that the people will go to an easier location when starting out.

as to what is or is not a good thing to do to moderate cliffs.
I also made no mention of the vast variety of climbing available in New York state.
In particular I left out the climbing in the Daks, In hopes that Bill Kirby would weigh in.

I have not climbed in the Adirondacks in a very long time,
but i recall that both horror show runout climbs and heavily bolted (over-bolted?) climbs often start at the same place, At Least that is how I remember it, at Moss Cliff , Spiders Web, the Beer walls, and even at Kings canyon(?)If that is what it is still called?) which is not 'sport 'bolted.

Do not call for Moderation/censorship if everyone is playing nicely.
Thanx to every-one for voicing an opinion.

As the times are changing and fast. More and more climbers want and are getting less risky climbing possibilities.

When the Bolt anchors went in, in the Gunks, much was lost, but it was hard to describe anything tangible.

Some of the changes are good and make sense given the demands of the growing popularity of climbing.

Time has shown that the resulting polishing of holds on climbs at all levels, (entire lengths of some climbs) and over the top, gang top roping, has changed -some- of the place.
You still find a lot of old school runout climbing, with-out bolted anchors, If you are into that.

EDIT: ( NOT WORTH A BUMP)
This was predictable, I was climbing in the Daks in late '70s when we had no bolts what so ever, and again in the 90s ( a few more bolts) the older quarter inch button heads were time bombs , that we clipped and never trusted.
we placed some very unconventional stuff, We being the Paul Smiths Dirt Cheep Climbing Club,The PSDCC,
Lag bolts with 'keeper' washers slammed in, not all the way home, to leave room for a cord or sling....
The Web And Moss are home to some of the best crack climbs anywhere, it was a troll ...

Thank you Mr Clark, That is a Very nice snap shot of you 3rd classing Doubleissima!!
There is A fun variation that takes the High E. line but never stops at the Ledge.
You go up the steep side.
Then at the ledge, continue up using - '2 holes'- to overcome the 1st overhang ,(the gap that is the ledge)
you join High E. at the regular crux but your position is on the overhanging wall. The pump is more in line with 5.9 than 5.6 YMMV, ( High E. The Hard Way,= HETHW, early 90s?)
give it a look, and see if you would climb at night, before the moon comes up, It is a very dark place at night.

I know I will regret posting here but I believe Jer is not trolling and, to his credit, has been making a concentrated effort to see the other side here. I highly encourage you to get out and try trad climbing yourself! To realize that climbing is just about how strong your mind is as well as your forearms is a what has made the experience more rewarding for many. Sport climbing has a mental side as well and is a fantastic medium of our sport but what is missing is the commitment factor. This changes the game immensely and thus increases the reward if one enjoys that commitment. It is not about reckless risk taking but about control and all of the weight being on your shoulders. Having needless bolts truly ruins the experience, even if you don't clip them. Please consider trying to go out with some friends who are into trad and let them show you for yourself why so many people having devoted their lives to this silly endeavor. Hell, if you lived near me I would take you out myself. Ethics will always be a place of contention, but you owe it to yourself to see how rad rock climbing really is.

Jer, the best way I can describe it is sport climbing is a 2D experience where, comparatively, trad climbing is full 3D and risk management is a dynamic and essential aspect of that third dimension - can't do the moves with the protection available? Then become a better climber and come back when you can (and that applies at any grade or difficulty). And even in gym/sport climbing you see a progression to closer bolt spacing over time where some early sport routes are now considered runout and if folks got used to the bolt spacing at Planet Granite then a call would go out at most sport venues to retrobolt existing sport routes because they're unsafe by comparison.

I think Henry Luedtke was spot on, and I would ask Jer if he has watered down the rest of his life for the sake of the safest alternative?

not the perfect analogy but Ben Franklin understood.

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Michael Schneider wrote: I have not climbed in the Adirondacks in a very long time, but i recall that both horror show runout climbs and heavily bolted (over-bolted?) climbs often start at the same place, At Least that is how I remember it, at Moss Cliff , Spiders Web, the Beer walls, and even at Kings canyon(?)If that is what it is still called?) which is not 'sport 'bolted.

Huh? Aside from rap anchors, Spider's Web has 3 or four pro bolts total as all of the routes are crack climbs. The Beer Walls have a couple sport routes and a bolted slab pitch. Moss Cliff has some bolts, but most routes follow gear protected crack and corner systems. I assume you mean the King Wall? Yeah there are some entirely bolt protected pitches there. None of the areas you mention are heavily bolted nor are there any horror show runouts at those crags either.

Jer, really trying to zoom out and understand your logic. Kinda tough. Would you be in favor of puting in a water fountain every 5 miles or so on the AT or PCT? I think you sound like you would.. This is not a jab at you. This is what your logic sounds like for those who prefer the adventure (and no, nothing to do with adrenaline) of natural routes.

Healyje wrote: Crikey, where on earth did you get the idea climbing should be 'safe'? If the public safety is the priority then I'd say let the 'public' hit the mall instead and leave the damn rocks alone. WTF...

Exactly! I can't understand though why I keep seeing your ugly rope and chalk on the cliff. Go natural?

beensandbagged wrote:I think Henry Luedtke was spot on, and I would ask Jer if he has watered down the rest of his life for the sake of the safest alternative? not the perfect analogy but Ben Franklin understood. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

Bingo. Plus that rope that you use came from petroleum, huge environmental impact! Save something for future generations?!

Mark W wrote: Exactly! I can't understand though why I keep seeing your ugly rope and chalk on the cliff. Go natural?

You may have seen my rope, but you'll never see any chalk of mine.

Henry Luedtke wrote:I know I will regret posting here but I believe Jer is not trolling and, to his credit, has been making a concentrated effort to see the other side here. I highly encourage you to get out and try trad climbing yourself! To realize that climbing is just about how strong your mind is as well as your forearms is a what has made the experience more rewarding for many. Sport climbing has a mental side as well and is a fantastic medium of our sport but what is missing is the commitment factor. This changes the game immensely and thus increases the reward if one enjoys that commitment. It is not about reckless risk taking but about control and all of the weight being on your shoulders. Having needless bolts truly ruins the experience, even if you don't clip them. Please consider trying to go out with some friends who are into trad and let them show you for yourself why so many people having devoted their lives to this silly endeavor. Hell, if you lived near me I would take you out myself. Ethics will always be a place of contention, but you owe it to yourself to see how rad rock climbing really is.

Thanks for the offer, I have and do enjoy trad climbing.

Jake Jones wrote:This is the argument of someone that knows nothing about climbing.

this is not an argument.

beensandbagged wrote:I think Henry Luedtke was spot on, and I would ask Jer if he has watered down the rest of his life for the sake of the safest alternative? not the perfect analogy but Ben Franklin understood. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

What is the essential liberty I am giving up in this comparison? I'd relate bolts between natural protection more to regular maintenance on a vehicle than civil rights.

Jeff Thilking wrote:Jer, really trying to zoom out and understand your logic. Kinda tough. Would you be in favor of puting in a water fountain every 5 miles or so on the AT or PCT? I think you sound like you would.. This is not a jab at you. This is what your logic sounds like for those who prefer the adventure (and no, nothing to do with adrenaline) of natural routes.

I'd have no problem with drinking fountains the size of a bolt that are installed and maintained by volunteers.

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
George Bernard Shaw

Jer wrote:What is the essential liberty I am giving up in this comparison? I'd relate bolts between natural protection more to regular maintenance on a vehicle than civil rights.

You have been insisting that what you want (i.e., "safer" routes) is how it should be. I have not yet seen much giving on your part.

Bill Lawry wrote:The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw You have been insisting that what you want (i.e., "safer" routes) is how it should be. I have not seen much giving on your part.

I don't think I'm insisting that, just asking for the reasoning you use to arrive at your conclusion. I'm an atheist, so arguments from authority are not convincing to me. Am I the unreasonable man upon whom progress depends in this quote?

Jer wrote: I don't think I'm insisting that, just asking for the reasoning you use to arrive at your conclusion.

This ...

Jer wrote:... safety for the masses is more important than the experience of danger for a few.

Bill Lawry wrote: This ...

Yes that's my opinion and I am open to change it based on reason and evidence, care to offer any? Is George Bernard Shaw your prophet who has given you some secret knowledge? because I don't get your point

Jer wrote: Yes that's my opinion and I am open to change it based on reason and evidence, care to offer any?

I don't think so - I haven't yet seen any willingness. Just insistence that there has not been any persuasive reasons offered.

Edit to add: Your "opinion" is pretty different from justified belief. No?

Jer wrote: Is George Bernard Shaw your prophet who has given you some secret knowledge?

No.

Bill Lawry wrote: I don't think so - I haven't yet seen any willingness. Just insistence that there has not been any persuasive reasons offered.

Not my fault that you don't have more persuasive arguments than
"This is the argument of someone that knows nothing about climbing."

Jer wrote: I'd have no problem with drinking fountains the size of a bolt that are installed and maintained by volunteers.

I think this is the crux of the disagreement/misunderstanding. For some people the sheer lack of convenience is the driving force. 'What can I, MYSELF, using my own skills and knowledge, do to complete the task at hand?'
For some the ultimate enjoyment comes from problem solving and using nothing more than their accumulated knowledge of clean gear placements and technical climbing abilities to complete a route.
Relying on the work of others (bolters, midget water fountain installers, etc.) takes away from the very aesthetic of the activity for some. For you this does not seem to be a detracting factor but, if one takes this thread as an example, you are the minority.
I love the movements associated with climbing in general. The physicality and physiological understanding of my body is great. When I want to focus on this or getting stronger, I sport climb or boulder.
I also love the sense of accomplishment which comes from long, traditionally protected routes. The mentality of knowing something is frightening and dangerous and then overcoming that fear and danger using only my learned skill sets and physical ability is the paramount point in my rock climbing.
Your philosophy studies will not be satisfied as ALL of this is opinion and will never be truly justified, but the ceaseless debate will continue and we all know that's all a philosophy degree is good for anyway...

simplyput wrote: I also love the sense of accomplishment which comes from long, traditionally protected routes. The mentality of knowing something is frightening and dangerous and then overcoming that fear and danger using only my learned skill sets and physical ability is the paramount point in my rock climbing. Your philosophy studies will not be satisfied as ALL of this is opinion and will never be truly justified, but the ceaseless debate will continue and we all know that's all a philosophy degree is good for anyway...

Are there long traditionally protected climbs that were bolted and subsequently chopped? I said ITT already that I don't suggest bolting stuff that can be protected traditionally.
What makes you think that philosophy can't be used to evaluate matters of preference?

Jer: Your "opinion" is pretty different from justified belief. No?

Jer wrote: I am newish and I study epistemology. I want to know the reasons why people believe things before accepting them. I am happy to consider reason and evidence, but you in particular have offered name calling and putdowns which only convince me that you're not a nice person.

Jer my friend, I think your questions are valid based on your perspective. I studied philosophy too and understand the desire to approach a problem purely from one particular philosophical perspective or another. From a philosophical stand point, something important to remember about epistomology, metaphysics, whatever-ology/ism is that it is only a lens to see the world through and a perspective to use in order to temporarily approach a problem. Its just one piece of the big pie we call human experience. When you take a particular perspective, such as epistemology, on as your definition of reality, it becomes something deeper like a metaphysics or a personal religion (not that there is anything wrong with that). Even something that at first glance appears as all encompassing as the theory of knowledge is limited by its own perspective. Anyway thats my perspective on the various schools of philosophical thought and thats not really the point. I also think you maybe have a paper to write and are out fishing since you have ignored several questions that challenge the logic of your proposition. But this is interesting and Ive got some time so Im gonna bite!

Concerning your argument, It is reductive to simplify something as historically and culturally rich as "climbing" to the simple reasoning of "bolt it so its safe". It ignores the history and culture that has developed around the experience. And the experience is what is centrally important here. You want to talk in terms of epistemology, so lets talk a about a priori (non experience or empirical) and a posteriori (experience based) forms of gaining knowledge. They are vastly different. Its easy to look at an existing route in terms of "safe or not safe" and make a decision to place a bolt (and thus we have sport climbing, which has it own value). Its harder to consider the experience of the first ascensionist and that there is an ethic of preserving that persons experience for future generations to come (and thus we have traditional climbing). Sport climbing and traditional climbing are not the same. Its like comparing apples to oranges. They are both fruit but are distinctly different.

In traditional climbing, the FA'ist realized a particular value a posteriori in their ascent. This value is multi faceted at least in terms of the actual climb itself, the physical and mental engagement required to do it, and potentially in terms of personal artistry (but artistry is somewhat outside the realm of epistemology). The value and personal knowledge gained by the FA'ist literally cannot be understood by another unless they engage in the route in the same way as the first ascensionist. The value and knowledge to be had can only be understood a posteriori (through the experience itself). And the "experience" is the central value that is trying to be preserved in respecting the style of the FA'ist and leaving a bolt out here or a bolt out there rather then grid bolting a crag (not to mention the environmental ethics involved, but Im not going to go there right now). The value of engaging risk is central to both the experience and culture of climbing. This is understood inherently by most people that engage in traditional climbing because they have gained their knowledge and understanding through experience rather than dialogue.

In general, you are making a reductive statement about bolt protection decisions in climbing based off of the faulty premise that "safety" is the most valuable aspect of climbing. This has resulted in a faulty generalization that ignores the rich cultural heritage of the "sport" and the long standing ethics that have developed around preserving the value of the experience as it was encountered by the FA'ist. Climbing never was safe. Climbing today is not "safe". No matter how many bolts are placed, risk still exists. It is only minimized. People break ankles in routine whippers at sport crags all the time. People deck weekly during high season at the Red River Gorge, arguably the most popular sport crag in America. The safety aspect of climbing has never been about acheiving blunt safety. Its more accurately characterized as risk management. Almost every one that has responded to your post with shock and disbelief finds significant value in engaging "unsafe" climbing of the grade of their choosing due to the risk management and psychological challenges present. Its the old adage "high risk = high reward". This is true in business and its true in traditional climbing. Its just that the reward found in climbing psychologically challenging routes arent as tangible as a crisp $1 bill or bumping your 8a score card to the next level.

So what exactly is the value thats gained? I think the answer to that is complex and personal. Perhaps it is better to ask the question of "Why?" rather then "Why not?" and you will get any number of worthy responses.

Additionally, the "safety above all" logic you present doesnt follow. Its a slippery slope argument. As was mentioned but ignored, if you think all routes should be made completely safe, then why not build an elevator up the Nose and a road to the summit of Denali? If its the movement that you appreciate (another valid value in climbing) then why not just climb it on top rope and save yourself the time and money of bolting? Id be interested to hear the answer to that question.

Also, sorry Thomas for contributing to the hijacking of your thread!