An Open Letter to Dan Briley

Scary climbs for mental challenge . Safe climbs for physical challenge.

What Jer is proposing is not only contrary to the entire tradition of climbing but would fundamentally change how the entire game is played.

I like clipping bolts as much as the next guy. I also dislike Healyje more than probably the next guy. In this situation, he's totally correct. He's got history and logic on his side.

Lets say you've got two lawyers. One passed the bar by studying and working hard. The other had a print off of the test with him for the tests, now he only looked at the answers when he needed them, and most tests he'd try really hard not to look. Who would you hire?

I've skipped bolts on routes to make them bold. It's not the same as not having those bolts. You're kidding yourself if you think they are the same.

Another truth about climbing, you don't have to do it. Nobody does in fact. If it's not safe enough for you, quit. Problem solved.

Jer wrote: 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?

Buddy, chopped or otherwise plays no role in my statements objective. All I'm doing is trying to help you understand people's stance in regards to why 'just don't clip the bolt' isn't good enough. You've made it clear you are looking for reasons as to why folks believe what they do but have also made it clear that any replies are a waste of time.
Since you're unwilling to accept this effort, I'll revert to lumping you in with many philosophic dilettantes; an argumentative individual who relies on pedantry to further arguments.
Bravo.

quote feature broke "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. 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.
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".
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!"

I'm not confident you've read the thread. The reason I brought up epistemology is to point out that the people calling me stupid and sad and whatever else were just being unconvincing jerks and not making arguments.
I don't advocate safety above all or say all routes should be completely safe, but I do value my safety more than some nebulous concept of culture. The difference between an elevator up the nose and a bolt between spaced natural placements is that one is still technical climbing.

I realize that it's tradition to defer to the FA party when protecting a route and I'm just asking why. Most of these routes are established by badasses who could have done them ropeless. I am not ashamed that I need more protection than Lynn Hill on a 5.10 and the people saying "get better or go to the gym you idiot" haven't convinced me.

edit:

simplyput wrote: Buddy, chopped or otherwise plays no role in my statements objective. All I'm doing is trying to help you understand people's stance in regards to why 'just don't clip the bolt' isn't good enough. You've made it clear you are looking for reasons as to why folks believe what they do but have also made it clear that any replies are a waste of time. Since you're unwilling to accept this effort, I'll revert to lumping you in with many philosophic dilettantes; an argumentative individual who relies on pedantry to further arguments. Bravo.

Chopped refers to the OP and from that discussion I am hoping to examine the larger principle of the matter which is the question "when to place a bolt?"
edit again because I can't post more:

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion wrote: I'll say again, nobody makes you climb. If you value safety above the established norms, you don't have to do it. I can't buy your safety argument when it's related to a totally optional pastime.

For the love of science, I don't know what the established norms are! This thread was started because Dan Briley and OP also seem to disagree on what they are.

Jer wrote: I do value my safety more than some nebulous concept of culture.

I'll say again, nobody makes you climb. If you value safety above the established norms, you don't have to do it. I can't buy your safety argument when it's related to a totally optional pastime.

Jer wrote: I don't advocate safety above all or say all routes should be completely safe, .

This is essentially what you have advocated for:
"There's been no reason given ITT why any 5.8 should have risk of serious injury if someone is willing to buy and install the hardware."

"I don't see why I should care about your mental challenge more than the safety of the public"

..."I think safety for the masses is more important..."

You are completely dismissive of the notion that many climbers place value on the risk management inherent in less protectable climbing. You don't even acknowledge that many climbers enjoy the reward that comes with overcoming challenging protection, even if (or especially if) the consequences of failure are serious.

"the difference between an elevator up the nose and a bolt between spaced natural placements is that one is still technical climbing."

You fail to understand that "technical climbing" to many is defined as more than just the physical ability to make the moves with little consequence. Plenty of bold climbing traditionalists still manage to see the value in well protected sport climbing, why can't you manage to see the other side of the coin?

To take it to an extreme: Why are climbers like Honnald so popular? He doesn't exactly push the edge of world class difficulty. He is revered for his ability to play the mind game. Not everyone wants to or is capable of taking it to that level, but the challenge and concept is the same. THe nice thing about climbing is that are climbs out there for every ability and every level of risk that people are willing to take. To argue that all runnouts with serious consequence should be eliminated for "public safety" is to completely remove a facet of climbing that many find rewarding.

Jer wrote:I realize that it's tradition to defer to the FA party when protecting a route and I'm just asking why. Most of these routes are established by badasses who could have done them ropeless.

There is a large continuum of level of risk taking, from those "badasses" on one hand, to those on the other hand who want safely protected routes (i.e., protection no more than X feet apart), to everything in between.

And, every generation, more climbers are born who replace the climbers of generations past ... all along that risk-level continuum ... from new climbers who only enjoy routes that demand a "nearly ropeless" skill level to climbers who only enjoy routes that are "safely" protected.

The fact that an FA party led a route nearly guarantees someone else will eventually come along who also wants to lead it that way (without any other option).

Edit: For me, the above is the answer to "why?" It is not a "cookie-cutter" world.

You don't go to the gym and add foot chips because you can't make the move. You don't chisel holds because you can't make the move. You don't add a bolt to an already established climb because you're sense of self preservation won't let you make the move. It's really quite simple. If the climb has not been previously established, do what you want but know that establishing routes in a way that is contrary to the generally agreed upon norm will cause static and may result in chopped bolts, for better or for worse.
This is not in the vein of the OP. The disagreement there was whether the climbs were established previous to bolting, the method in which they were bolted (on lead vs on rappel) and the fact that little discussion occurred before action.
I'm really not sure where the confusion lies. Especially considering the mass of replies attempting to explain it.

Jer, I'd guess you likely hurl just a little bit every time you see philosophy reduced to some bumper sticker aphorism. The notion of 'public safety' in the context of climbing and bolting climbs to the lowest common denominator provokes the same response among climbers and certainly older climbers.

Would you reduce philosophy courses and philosophical discourse to the level of cliff notes and complete idiot guides for the sake of access and intellectual 'safety'?

I don't know, maybe the old cliche is right:

Yevgeny Zamyatin wrote:Children are the only bold philosophers.

I think you can chop any bolt you want, as long as you're on lead.

Jer wrote: I'm not confident you've read the thread. The reason I brought up epistemology is to point out that the people calling me stupid and sad and whatever else were just being unconvincing jerks and not making arguments.

No I read the thread. You indicated interest in epistemology and asked for reasons as to why there shouldnt be a bolt in between spaced gear so I gave you a set of reasons on what I thought was an intellectual level you would relate to (you are obviously academically intelligent). You just dont seem to want to accept those reasons. You gave reasons for wanting a bolt there too - safety. But then you said ...

Jer wrote: I don't advocate safety above all or say all routes should be completely safe, but I do value my safety more than some nebulous concept of culture.

The history of human culture has led up to and influenced everything you think you know and are right now. I assure you its not some nebulous concept. Besides there are plenty of safe routes out there for you. Maybe stick to those?

Jer wrote: I realize that it's tradition to defer to the FA party when protecting a route and I'm just asking why.

Didnt I say its to preserve the experience and challenge? Not to mention the natural resource itself.

Jer wrote: I am not ashamed that I need more protection than Lynn Hill on a 5.10 and the people saying "get better or go to the gym you idiot" haven't convinced me.

You shouldnt be ashamed, I need more pro then Lynn too! But you dont find value in rising to a challenge? I dont know anyone who climbs because its easy. You mentioned you just want to have fun and be safe. There is a significant population of climbers out there who dont want to just have fun and be safe. They want significant physical and psychological challenges. I believe that there can be no growth without engaging risk. Some prefer more risk and growth then others. Why should we compromise their potential experiences in the name of safety?

Jer you seem to be a bit of a closed box. Why are you asking for reasons if you are not open to hearing any? When Im new to something Ive always found it serves me better to learn as much as possible to understand that new thing before making arguments about the basic values of that new thing. Seems youve already made up your mind.

you all realize this is stupid, right?

(you are obviously academically intelligent).
Or he just learned a new word. Can't say that he exhibits a firm grasp of epistemology.

Thomas, sadly, your best recourse is to find some undiscovered rock and develop it how you see fit. I have a feeling that would produce some good lines.

John Wilder wrote: All things being equal, this is the part that concerns me about this interaction between Thomas and Dan. That someone would chop a route based on their 'best guess' as to the style it was put up seems....well, wrong. I've been out to Keyhole and climbed these routes prior to them being chopped. My thoughts were that they were decent routes, most likely bolted on lead (as rap bolting them looked like more work than just climbing them). I'm not a fan of going out and chopping bolts without contacting the installer first and having a discussion about why the bolts should be chopped- chopping bolts always leads to a fight, and the only effective way to limit it is to talk first, imho. It sounds like these routes were known to a few people who didnt really share info about them and so Thomas had no reason to think that he was encroaching on established lines. Picking up the phone and having a chat before going out there and ripping a bunch of bolts out may well have prevented this fiasco.

I concur 100% with your whole post, John Wilder. You bring up some excellent points.

I contacted Thomas with the concerns of retro-bolting existing lines, placing bolts where gear can be used, and rap-bolting before any bolts were pulled. He responded pretty tersely and that was the end of that. Saying that he had led these lines in would've instantly deflated the situation.

So far, we've focused on restoring existing routes. If bolts were pulled from any of Thomas' forays on virgin rock, then I will personally see to it that the lines are reinstalled (with Thomas if he so desires).

DesertDan wrote: I concur 100% with your whole post, John Wilder. You bring up some excellent points. I contacted Thomas with the concerns of retro-bolting existing lines, placing bolts where gear can be used, and rap-bolting before any bolts were pulled. He responded pretty tersely and that was the end of that. Saying that he had led these lines in would've instantly deflated the situation. So far, we've focused on restoring existing routes. If bolts were pulled from any of Thomas' forays on virgin rock, then I will personally see to it that the lines are reinstalled (with Thomas if he so desires).

I don't get the big deal about rap bolting. It's 2015 not 1980, right?

#ethicspolice

Hey guys.

This is not definitely NOT a climbing ethics post. I am a guy knows Dan Briley from WAY back and is hoping someone might be able to update me on him. I am reachable on here and happy to provide direct contact info if helpful.

thanks,

all best,

former so. nevada resident, and hoping to head back sometime, 

mike

Hey Mike!!!

Nothing like waking up to see yer name in the top forum post ;) My hands are sweaty and my pits are dripping.

DM'd Señor.