I hear lots of people say this (Lee's quote just happens to be handy):

Right, the plan as it stands is way too complicated, unmanageable, and impractical, plus it does not solve problems, but creates them.
Having said that, it is a given that the BLM still must come up with a management plan for climbing within its Wilderness areas. So, climbers in turn have to work to make this plan a sensible one. Simplicity and a user-friendly system should be hallmarks of the final proposal, and in no way would such attributes detract from long-term preservation of Wilderness values.

Thanks to Brian in SLC for providing (at the bottom of the first page of this thread) the link to the Access Fund's June 2007 comment letter on the BLM's proposed Wilderness Management Plan. The letter is long, but worth reading. It reinforces all of the same concerns I have about the plan and offers suggestions that resonate well with me.

This is a complicated issue with many different perspectives. These complications only reinforce the need for a simple plan that achieves priority primary objectives that everyone at least can understand, even if they may not agree 100%.

From the comments I've seen so far, there seems to be a strong sentiment among the climbers on this site that the proposed bolting rules are too strict, too complicated and will be too difficult for anyone, be they the BLM or the climbing community, to effectively enforce.

I hope the BLM is paying attention.

How about guidelines like this:

Hand drills only.

Beyond the designated day-use wilderness (I forget the terminology for this), no more than 2 bolts in the first 100 feet.

Allows for some concentrated use, but discourages it in most of the wilderness that is not already heavily used anyway.

Just a thought.

thanks josh and doug
sounds like we're all decided then.
go put it into action.
oh wait...there are no BLM people here
we're all just griping to each other
that works to fix bureaucratic red tape every time!
oh yeah and one of you is from wisconsin...that helps too.

I don't think you can put an arbitrary vertical distance on bolt spacing.
I can't imagine having to think about that requirement, much less having to enforce it.


I agree with you Brian.
I view the "2 bolts in first hundred ft" more as a guideline then a hard and fast rule.

It's totally not enforceable. Of course NONE of the what the BLM is suggesting is!
In fact I'll say it...what the BLM is trying to do is Laughable.
Hell go look at the thread talking about raising fees....they have 54 employee's split between 2 different recreation areas!!

BLM if you want anything that is even remotely enforceable you need to listen to the climbers and other land managers.....hand drill only!

Here is a question for those advocating a simple "hand-drill only" rule. Could you accept the maximum bolts per canyon numbers listed on page 20 of the proposed plan? (i.e. hand-drill only, but no more than the number of bolts specified in the Environmental Assessment)

To Larry's question about accepting the maximum number of bolts/canyon limitation, I'd say no, I can't. The specific number is not really the point, but rather the level of detail that the plan presently asks for. # of bolts in Oak Creek Canyon? Let's get real.

You wouldn't *have* to specify a number of bolts to do an environmental impact statement (or whatever we call it these days). What you ultimately want to know to do an accurate assessment is how many new popular routes there will be, and how dispersed they will be. Someone want to take a crack at modeling that?

It's hard to talk about one single feature of the plan, in this case a specific number of bolts/canyon, without getting sucked into considering everything else. It's all tied together like Ishmael tethered to the side of that white whale.
The BLM is busy issuing 'record of categorical exclusion' decisions to the need for EA's here in Wyoming, as the air in Sublette Co. competes for the worst west of the 100th meridian. There are many tools in their box, few in ours. The plan is hopelessly complex. I think they, and we, would be far better off if we started over, but that's not going to happen.
In June '07 the BLM asked for public comment on its proposed plan. Many of us submitted lengthy comments, including the Access Fund, which, for lack of competition if nothing else, presents a responsible position for many climbers. When will the BLM be ready to lay out its revised ideas, having taken in the comments and responses it'd received? Much of this thread was part of the public's response in '07.

Larry's suggestion of a simple statement limiting the number of new bolts in each canyon and allowing drilling only by hand may not be perfect, but I see it as a much better solution than the current proposal. This is the kind of compromise thinking I was hoping might come forward.

Could this be the right time for a group like the LVCLC to take the input collected from this web site, their survey, and their regular monthly meetings, together with the Access Fund comment letter, to schedule a meeting with the right people at BLM to discuss a compromise solution?

yes, flexibility in the program is key. as already stated, the plan limits FA freedom and promotes extesnsive application for permits, planning, bureaucracy, etc. i like the hand drill ethic and a flexible plan that can be changed. i think the # of bolts is just the governments way of establishing some quantifiable data. if that factor can be flexible it would be exceptable.

After receiving two PM's I stand corrected. I was not aware that there was any BLM interest in this little ole website.

With that being said, I would agree that there should be hand drills only. I know that some argue that many routes with many bolts went in with hand drills, but that was in the 1/4 inch era. These days I think trying to put in 3/8 with a hand drill would slow down "sport crag" style development.

I would agree that bolt quotas are probably the BLM's way to come up with a quantifiable way to monitor the canyons, however, Larry's suggestion to rotate which canyons are inventoried would be a great idea.

To recap:
hand drills would be good
rotating bolt counts would be good too.

Putting up long trad lines involves a sense of exploration and adventure. These rules tend to destroy all of that. Instead of pushing forward up the wall, seeing where the new route ends up, I suppose this permitting process would have you scoping the line from the ground and guessing where the bolts might be necessary followed by endless hours of bureaucratic wrangling before the adventure can even begin. Honestly, how can a permit application be filled out before a route is climbed? I don't see the feasibility in proposing a line a describing anchor locations when you haven't even left the ground. The whole thing strikes me as unsafe and unrealistic.

While it is good to see alot of discussion on this topic I worry that further deliberation is going to push out ANY resolution to the moratorium on new route development with bolts.

From my understanding the BLM has in mind that they simply do not want any more prince of darkness type routes as well as "sport" crags in the wilderness areas. Whether we like this or not I feel this is probably the lot we have been dealt. Of course public outcry CAN change things but I doubt that will happen in this case. While we, as climbers, are vocal our resources and actual numbers pale in comparison to several other user groups.

As a realist I think we should try to get what we can through and allow the first ascencionists back out on the rocks with at least something. In truth, whatever rules go into effect there will be people that follow them and of course people that will go on not following them and the only true regulation will be us the climbers. So to that end I say lets rally for the best deal we can get and go on with it.

There are many idealist opinions being expressed and I can sympathize with them as I too share many of the same thoughts. I hope however that some plan will be decided on soon. At this point I could live with the plan as it stands and while it would be nice for us to have more latitude we are also dealing with the govenment here.

My 2 centavos

Sport climbing in the wilderness is...bad?

Funny, when Paul Van Betten was putting up routes on Cannabis Crag, nearly getting his head caved in by an XXL rotten flake, I didn't hear anyone complaining about closely spaced bolts on 5.12+ back in the wilderness. And for the record, I can wing a rock from Winter Heat Wall to Sunny and Steep's belay area, but I hear not a whit of complaint about the janky old cold shut anchors at the top of every trad climb, I hear no complaints about the shiny bolts on the mixed routes over there, and the two sport routes on the wall, both put up by Calico residents Pier and Randy Marsh.

Sport climbers irritate me, because they don't have a sense of history or respect for the rock or the back country, much in the same way that trustafarian "gear editors" feel like a hair on my tongue with their name-dropping and toadying, much as inflated ego Johnny-Come-Lately's who claim to found organizations they've swapped into beer clubs after the hundreds of members and the newsletter have fallen off, and so on. The sport routes have just as much right to be there as Couldn't Be Schmooter and Winter Heat-and you haven't heard about anyone leading Steep Thrills on gear so they can chop it with a clear conscience, have you? Ever heard a tourist complain about the eyesore of those 3 (?) bolts on the Sport Chimney?

The bolts aren't the problem, and someone needs to come out and say it. THE BOLTS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is the disrespect for our wilderness, whether it's designated as such by some governmental dotted line or not. The TRASH is a problem. The damage to the FLORA is a problem. The GRAFFITI is a problem. Whether or not I or some other jackass decides that Vegas needs a 2400' A0 bolt ladder means nothing, because I GUARANTEE YOU that if anyone decided to do such a thing, with a bosch, a hauler, time, and a couple grand in bolts, such a climb could be installed (climbed is not the proper word), camo'd (after the first 150', there wouldn't be any need to paint the hangers-no one could find the bolts up there with help from the Hubble, anyway), and it WOULDN"T MAKE A BIT OF DIFFERENCE TO ANYONE. NO ONE WOULD EVER SEE IT BUT THE TWENTY CLIMBERS IN THIS TOWN THAT DO 3HR PLUS HIKES TO FIND UNCLIMBED LINES.

The TRASH all over Calico is still sitting there while the soapbox groans under the might of the Internet Titans (by the way-I *am* taking out a bag when I head out there today to clean up, as responsible locals on the East Coast have actually been known to do, on occasion), the sport climbing out there is intrinsically similar to the other cragging in Gateway by virtue of your ability to lower off after you're done celebrating capri pants everywhere, and I am personally sick of the entire argument about the bolts.

Join a local climbing organization. Help out with cleanups. Fill out a survey so that your voice is actually heard and recognized to be a part of a user group that deserves a listen by sheer numbers if not the habit of consistency. If you don't like bolts, take them off. If you like bolts, put them in, and hope no one takes them out.

Does life really benefit from government intervention or constant nitpicking over the details of HOW EXACTLY we're being marginalized as a user group? Mine doesn't. I climb because it reinforces my beliefs about strength, responsibility, commitment, and that hard work does make me cooler than some puddle of "my parents bought it for me."

Join the LVCLC, the Access Fund, weigh in your 2 cents, and go climbing. Or pick up a hobby that might help out with some of that excess time you've got-badminton perhaps?