Buying a guidebook from someone whose ethics are widely in question

Bill Wwrote:

Don't try and rewrite history. When he was doing the development there was no law that said you can't drill pockets or bolts, the moratorium came because some other locals didn't like his style, made a stink, and chopped his bolts making many routes dangerous forcing the FS's hand.

So you really think the FS (and AF and BHCC) just retroactively added a little amendment about altering rock just so they could shut down the crag because some locals chopped bolts?

There definitely were laws/rules about altering the rock (bolting not included in this)….and still are lol 

The chopping, concreting, padlocking only forced the FS’s hand in the sense that it got their attention to the extent of it and were obviously forced to act. LA has even admitted that he went too far. Try to keep up.

Besides if you’ve talked to any FS rangers (not the climbing rangers as they were added after the fact) they have/had no relative idea what’s going on with the actual climbing and are far more concerned with the trail work, parking, and camping than the process of how routes are put up…they have way bigger fish to fry in their eyes trying to regulate and enforce other rules/laws within their jurisdiction.  

Bill Wwrote:

Don't try and rewrite history. When he was doing the development there was no law that said you can't drill pockets or bolts, the moratorium came because some other locals didn't like his style, made a stink, and chopped his bolts making many routes dangerous forcing the FS's hand.

https://www.accessfund.org/open-gate-blog/what-we-can-learn-from-the-ten-sleep-controversy 

Per AF:

• Chipping, gluing, or otherwise manufacturing holds on outdoor climbing routes is not only unethical and illegal, and it will jeopardize access for the whole community.

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

https://www.accessfund.org/open-gate-blog/what-we-can-learn-from-the-ten-sleep-controversy 

Per AF:

• Chipping, gluing, or otherwise manufacturing holds on outdoor climbing routes is not only unethical and illegal, and it will jeopardize access for the whole community.

The AF has no authority on the matter, legally speaking. 

Show us the order/law from the FS that says drilling pockets is illegal dated before the Louie fiasco came to light.

Same for you JT, show us the order. 

Bill Wwrote:

The AF has no authority on the matter, legally speaking. 

Show us the order/law from the FS that says drilling pockets is illegal dated before the Louie fiasco came to light.

Same for you JT, show us the order. 

I believe it would (and ultimately did) fall under 36 CFR 261.9 stating: Damaging any natural feature or other property of the United States…

I would also like to add that while the AF may not have any legal “authority” on the matter…they do dictate, in large part, of how Climbing areas are used and are a large influencer in how ethics are developed/implemented throughout most major climbing areas in the US. They also are a major influencer in many local coalitions, such as the BHCC, thus also influencing “style” 

Not sure why you are trying to defend the actions of LA when the he has literally stated he went too far and doesn’t condone what he did….

From the American Bar Assoc on Tensleep:

"The Forest Service still lacks nationally applicable regulations to guide climbing management decisions and existing regulations are scattershot. Only two national forest units have dedicated climbing management plans. Forest Service wilderness management regulations neither acknowledge climbing as a legitimate wilderness use nor address the use of fixed anchors. As a result, forest managers enjoy far greater regulatory discretion, which results in inconsistent and seemingly arbitrary enforcement decisions. For example, fixed anchors are still prohibited in the Sawtooth Wilderness under regulations prohibiting the storing of “equipment, personal property or supplies.” In Ten Sleep and in Bitterroot National Forest, the Forest Service justified bolting moratoriums under 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.9(a) and 261.10(a), which prohibit damaging U.S. property and making unauthorized improvements of National Forest system land. Vandalizing or removing existing fixed anchors is also considered to be damaging U.S. property. Further, the Forest Service considers obstructing access to a climb an impermissible impediment to travel along an existing trail."

*******  "If placing fixed anchors and the cleaning of new routes is generally prohibited under 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.9(a) and 261.10(a), then all fixed anchors on national forest land are technically illegal. *******

This, in effect, makes continued access to climbing resources subject to the discretion of local forest managers. Such a decision contravenes the Forest Service’s multiple-use mandate and the managerial maxims of the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), which encourages comprehensive and permissive, rather than discretionary and limiting, regulation of the recreation resource."

ME: ****** I will point out that the above statement is not exactly correct - the FS used safety as justification for shutting down Funky Town in addition to the CFR codes mentioned. They have the authority to move based on that alone, IMO. However, they did use 261.x, too, so point taken as valid. ******** 

ME: As pointed out above, other land managers see their obligation to uphold multiple-use recreation as a reason why they can't shut down sport climbing:

"The codification of multiple-use management entrenched the Forest Service’s active regulation of the recreational resource. The Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (MUSYA), established outdoor recreation as a resource akin to “range, timber, and watershed” whose preservation is a fundamental purpose of the national forest system. MUSYA charged land managers with balancing commodity resource and recreational resource uses to maximize the utility of public lands and ensure perpetual resource availability. Congress enacted further management guidelines through the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. The RPA includes “outdoor recreation” among the listed goals of renewable resource programs, and the NFMA established legal standards the Forest Service must adhere to in developing and managing forest resources. Subsequently promulgated implementing regulations established binding requirements for land management plans applicable to all forest service units. The regulations favor comprehensive management by requiring forest management plans to provide for “social, economic, and ecological sustainability . . . consistent with the inherent capability of the plan area.” The regulations are highly permissive of recreation and encourage land management that enhances and expands outdoor recreation opportunities."

The entire ABA editorial is worth a read.

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

Pardon my ignorance, but if you are correct in saying the state is going after Louie for breaking state law (which I believe you are). How is it that you say they are supporting manufacturing of rock? Via Ferrata is very different than actual climbing routes from many different aspects and VF is in South Dakota not Wyoming, correct?

VF is in South Dakota not Wyoming, correct?

VF is in Jackson, WY. And as stated above, coming to Sinks Canyon near lander, WY, on state land. And maybe somewhere else.

Via Ferrata is very different than actual climbing routes...."

I don't make heads or tails of the state's thinking but here goes:

There is no difference to the state. They consider it climbing - as do many climbers. It will be advertised as climbing just as it is in Jackson: "Via Ferrata is Jackson Hole Mountain Resort's guided climbing experience". The climbing community is supporting it, and building it, and maintaining it. There will be climbing guides on site, harnesses, helmets, biners, etc. The state wants VF to promote climbing in Sinks Canyon as part of their economic development efforts. Smells like climbing, looks like climbing, and is advertised as climbing; but like gym climbing, there are manufactured holds.

"How is it that you say they are supporting manufacturing of rock?

Since they consider it climbing, and since it involves manufacturing holds in the rock (unless there is a new hair-splitting definition of manufacturing & holds), then they are in fact manufacturing climbing holds in the rock. That is different than manufacturing OF rock but not much difference in terms of aesthetic, or comfortizing, or downgrading of the route's difficulty. I could probably blow holes in state rock with a hunting rifle and none would care. Hunting being far more popular than climbing.

At least that's my opinion. Take it for what it's worth: 2¢¢¢

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

I believe it would (and ultimately did) fall under 36 CFR 261.9 stating: Damaging any natural feature or other property of the United States…

I would also like to add that while the AF may not have any legal “authority” on the matter…they do dictate, in large part, of how Climbing areas are used and are a large influencer in how ethics are developed/implemented throughout most major climbing areas in the US. They also are a major influencer in many local coalitions, such as the BHCC, thus also influencing “style” 

Not sure why you are trying to defend the actions of LA when the he has literally stated he went too far and doesn’t condone what he did….

Check out Teton's post. Nowhere does 36 CFR 261.9 explicitly prohibit anything LA did. Interestingly it does prohibit what the bolt smashers did.

The ambiguous language of 36 CFR 261.9 was used to serve the purpose of the mob who didn't like LA's ethics of development. This whole thing is nothing but climber politics.

Regardless, 36 CFR 261.9 was written to limit and prohibit human impact on an area in a general sense including many user groups and was certainly NOT written to disect climber ethics regarding what we call "chipping".

Tradibanwrote:

What's under debate here is style not ethics. "Local ethic" only exists in the ether, so what is boils down to is mob rule.. ..

I think you open up a good point about style. And it can be expanded upon. However, the discussion is about ethic and style. Both are discussed. It is not just about style. Clearly, many people (FS, etc) now want the "ethic" written down on paper in the form of a management plan to take it out of the 'ether'.  

To state the obvious, it would not pass muster on most boulder or trad lines to have fixed bolts up a rockface. But you find exceptions. Louie gets no exceptions for his style, of course, from folks like the Access Fund and most sport climbers. Apparently, they feel that only they get to define the style and ethic for all sport climbs. 

If you look at ski resorts, no resort skier is bothered by the manufactured slopes, restaurants and ski lifts on public land. 

Louie's style of development has similar overtones. And clearly, those who oppose it don't like his style because it encroaches on theirs. I would probably feel the same way if 1200 sport routes were bolted in Grand Teton National Park. Shooting sport climbers may even get my support as a way to control an invasive species ;-)

Bill Wwrote:

Check out Teton's post. Nowhere does 36 CFR 261.9 explicitly prohibit anything LA did. Interestingly it does prohibit what the bolt smashers did.

The ambiguous language of 36 CFR 261.9 was used to serve the purpose of the mob who didn't like LA's ethics of development. This whole thing is nothing but climber politics.

Regardless, 36 CFR 261.9 was written to limit and prohibit human impact on an area in a general sense including many user groups and was certainly NOT written to disect climber ethics regarding what we call "chipping".

Ok, yea, it turns out you're an idiot who can't read.

Anyone that thinks drilling holes with a power tool is not "damaging" the rock can't really be reasoned with.

We can argue whether the damage is creative or vandalism but not whether it is damage to virgin stone or not.

Bill Wwrote:

Check out Teton's post. Nowhere does 36 CFR 261.9 explicitly prohibit anything LA did. Interestingly it does prohibit what the bolt smashers did.

The ambiguous language of 36 CFR 261.9 was used to serve the purpose of the mob who didn't like LA's ethics of development. This whole thing is nothing but climber politics.

Regardless, 36 CFR 261.9 was written to limit and prohibit human impact on an area in a general sense including many user groups and was certainly NOT written to disect climber ethics regarding what we call "chipping".

So now you arguing the ambiguity? In Teton’s post, had you cared to read it, he agreed that CFR 261.9 was used, in part, to shut down Funky Town.

You asked for a law or statute in place prior to the Louie fiasco. I provided one. One that they used, and you now admit that they used. The purpose or reasoning of why that law was used is irrelevant. There was a law in place that made what Louie did illegal, however ambiguous you want to believe it may be. Sorry, but there was a law in place. You were wrong.  Oh, and by the way, for the millionths time (since I know you came in late) it was far more than just “chipping”   

It should also be noted that this same regulation is mentioned explicitly in regards to bolting by the USDA in their “Best Practices for climbing management on the BHNF”. It even explicitly mentions it was already in place. So no ambiguity to argue against there, bud. So not only ethics, but also style go against the grain in this particular situation. 

Either way clearly the forest service/land owners, the perpetrators (Louie and bolt smashers), and nearly every climbing coalition disagree with you at this point so I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue at this point.

What are you trying to argue at this point?

Teton Climberwrote:

VF is in South Dakota not Wyoming, correct?

VF is in Jackson, WY. And as stated above, coming to Sinks Canyon near lander, WY, on state land. And maybe somewhere else.

Via Ferrata is very different than actual climbing routes...."

I don't make heads or tails of the state's thinking but here goes:

There is no difference to the state. They consider it climbing - as do many climbers. It will be advertised as climbing just as it is in Jackson: "Via Ferrata is Jackson Hole Mountain Resort's guided climbing experience". The climbing community is supporting it, and building it, and maintaining it. There will be climbing guides on site, harnesses, helmets, biners, etc. The state wants VF to promote climbing in Sinks Canyon as part of their economic development efforts. Smells like climbing, looks like climbing, and is advertised as climbing; but like gym climbing, there are manufactured holds.

"How is it that you say they are supporting manufacturing of rock?

Since they consider it climbing, and since it involves manufacturing holds in the rock (unless there is a new hair-splitting definition of manufacturing & holds), then they are in fact manufacturing climbing holds in the rock. That is different than manufacturing OF rock but not much difference in terms of aesthetic, or comfortizing, or downgrading of the route's difficulty. I could probably blow holes in state rock with a hunting rifle and none would care. Hunting being far more popular than climbing.

At least that's my opinion. Take it for what it's worth: 2¢¢¢

Sorry; I am an idiot and didn’t realize you were abbreviated Via Ferrata and in my head that computed to the “VC” in South Dakota.

Maybe I’m more old school but I don’t see VF as anything close to climbing in many way. Primarily that it will always be for profit directly, in that they charge explicitly for VF. Whereas climbing is free and any financial gain made by the local community is an indirect result of climbing. Due to this reasoning (in my head) it seems obvious that altering rock for VF would be supported heavily whereas I see much less support, or interest, in supporting manufacturing rock climbs that will not gain the state any direct profit. On the same token, comparing Jackson to Ten Sleep is laughable to me. The sinks comparison is more accurate so that is somewhat worrisome.

TLDR: I view VF as a direct profit therefore understand the states support of “creating” routes whereas climbing does not have a direct profit to the state and therefore I don’t think they would care enough to support manufacturing. 

"Due to this reasoning (in my head) it seems obvious that altering rock for VF would be supported heavily whereas I see much less support, or interest, in supporting manufacturing rock climbs that will not gain the state any direct profit. On the same token, comparing Jackson to Ten Sleep is laughable to me. The sinks comparison is more accurate so that is somewhat worrisome."

Yep. Jackson is not Tensleep Canyon. You just asked where there was VF so I answered. That VF land in Jackson is Forest Service land, btw, not state. 

In reference to my earlier comment: "the state might support Louie if they saw economic value in his work".

The point being made was that the state would probably support Louie's work if they could monetize it. They happily let others deface state land. "Value" often comes from extraction in Wyoming. I make no judgment on the value of Louie's handiwork and that wasn't the point.

In other words, there is no evidence that they would oppose manufacturing holds under any and all circumstances. For example, if manufacturing holds was the favored style in the Bighorns, I can promise you that the state would stand behind climbers manufacturing holds on Forest Service land. As might the Forest Service. Skiing was used as an example but I could have used mountain biking. We manufacture single-track jumps on FS land in the Tetons. We use mini excavators to do that.

The state does receive indirect value through climbing tourism but state land in the Bighorns isn't required to see that value. Bolting might be technically illegal on state land without permission (obviously, the state hasn't shut down Sinks). I will have to ask what the law is.

"Whereas climbing is free and any financial gain made by the local community is an indirect result of climbing."

Guided climbing in the Tetons and Winds and Bighorns is an economic activity the state promotes. Obviously, not free. So, it is just like VF in that regard. Louie's work is free to use of course. And just as sport climbers will be on the same face as the VF climbers, they also share faces in the Bighorns that Louie manufactured. 

The state has been promoting climbing for decades because tourism is the 2nd biggest source of revenue outside of extraction. You can call VF entertainment instead of climbing. Sounds reasonable to me. Either way, natural resources will be sacrificed by the state whenever they find value in doing so. 

Teton Climberwrote:

Yep. Jackson is not Tensleep Canyon. You just asked where there was VF so I answered. That VF land in Jackson is Forest Service land, btw, not state. 

Which makes the comparison even less valid IMO. 

In other words, there is no evidence that they would oppose manufacturing holds under any and all circumstances. For example, if manufacturing holds was the favored style in the Bighorns, I can promise you that the state would stand behind climbers manufacturing holds on Forest Service land. As might the Forest Service.

Except that it is clearly not the favored style (or ethic) in the area any longer as has been evident by the drama, bolting moratorium, and climbing rangers put in place throughout the Bighorns (this includes the Eastern Big Horns like Crazy Woman and areas surrounding Story). I can't tell if you are playing Devil's advocate or genuinely don't know but a lot of these "if" scenarios you are throwing out there have seemingly already been addressed and/or acted upon by the local coalition and land managers...including state owned land in the Eastern Bighorns that is more/less monitored by the BHCC. 

Go Back to Super Topowrote:

Except that it is clearly not the favored style (or ethic) in the area any longer as has been evident by the drama, bolting moratorium, and climbing rangers put in place throughout the Bighorns (this includes the Eastern Big Horns like Crazy Woman and areas surrounding Story). I can't tell if you are playing Devil's advocate or genuinely don't know but a lot of these "if" scenarios you are throwing out there have seemingly already been addressed and/or acted upon by the local coalition and land managers...including state owned land in the Eastern Bighorns that is more/less monitored by the BHCC. 

"Which makes the comparison even less valid IMO"

It is only used by you as a comparison. You questioned the idea that VF was in Wyoming. But it does show that the Forest Service is happy to support one style of manufactured holds. The issue in regards to Louie's work is mostly about his development on Federal land. The issue about his work on state land is, apparently, secret, so one can't discuss the legal aspects in regards to state law. If you have insight, please point to the relevant state statutes that discuss development on state lands for public recreation.

"seemingly already been addressed and/or acted upon by the local coalition and land managers"

Sure, some have. As was pointed out in the comment I posted from the American Bar Association, some issues are far from resolved. Their essay said: "If placing fixed anchors and the cleaning of new routes is generally prohibited under 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.9(a) and 261.10(a), then all fixed anchors on national forest land are technically illegal."

If you pay attention to SCOTUS arguments, you will know that justices will flesh out weaknesses from all sides. No reason not to do that here. The final law in regards to sport climbing may become a national model - it may affect trad climbers, boulders, alpinists, or other users of the land. In another thread about trundling, climbers suggested that using a car jack to remove rock was appropriate. Getting into the nitty gritty of what's allowed and what isn't is best done before policy become law.

None has come up with a management plan yet. The BCC does not set policy. If they did, or if the issues have been settled, then the Forest Service would not need to put off a plan for several years.

Again, having a legal framework that has been thoroughly vetted is a good idea. Vague laws serve none.

Teton Climberwrote:

Again, having a legal framework that has been thoroughly vetted is a good idea. Vague laws serve none.

Vague laws can also serve all….

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Vague laws can also serve all….

So true. Lawyers thank you.

Many federal policies allow land managers some discretion. This has played out with climbers since there is no national federal policy on climbing for federal land managers. The Access Fund says the plan being developed may be the national model. If you want flexibility, better put it into policy. For example, GTNP does not want sport climbers running all over the park putting up bolts. Places like Blacktail Butte in GTNP are nice spots for sport climbers. Most of the backcountry is not. 

If the local ethic rules, than the new management plan should require local land managers to spell it out for all to see.

Climbing will only get more out of control, not less in the coming decades.

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

So now you arguing the ambiguity? In Teton’s post, had you cared to read it, he agreed that CFR 261.9 was used, in part, to shut down Funky Town.

You asked for a law or statute in place prior to the Louie fiasco. I provided one. One that they used, and you now admit that they used. The purpose or reasoning of why that law was used is irrelevant. There was a law in place that made what Louie did illegal, however ambiguous you want to believe it may be. Sorry, but there was a law in place. You were wrong.  Oh, and by the way, for the millionths time (since I know you came in late) it was far more than just “chipping”   

It should also be noted that this same regulation is mentioned explicitly in regards to bolting by the USDA in their “Best Practices for climbing management on the BHNF”. It even explicitly mentions it was already in place. So no ambiguity to argue against there, bud. So not only ethics, but also style go against the grain in this particular situation. 

Either way clearly the forest service/land owners, the perpetrators (Louie and bolt smashers), and nearly every climbing coalition disagree with you at this point so I’m not sure what you’re trying to argue at this point.

What are you trying to argue at this point?

CFR 261.9 can also be interpreted to say bolting is illegal. So if you are trying to say that it declares bolting legal and pocket drilling illegal you've contradicted yourself. You have used the ambiguity of the law nefariously to make your point. If in your mind bolting is legal then drilling for pockets is too.

Bill Wwrote:

CFR 261.9 can also be interpreted to say bolting is illegal. So if you are trying to say that it declares bolting legal and pocket drilling illegal you've contradicted yourself. You have used the ambiguity of the law nefariously to make your point. If in your mind bolting is legal then drilling for pockets is too.

You can interpret it in whatever way you'd like. I've interpreted it in the same way the governing body ultimately did. 

More than anything, my previous post was attempting to allow you to comprehend that there was a law/regulation in existence prior to the "Louie fiasco".....which you originally claimed was false and  have since now said it was actually a law/regulation but is too ambiguous for your liking, as if your interpretation or opinion of the law has any bearing on the conversation or situation. 

Providing protection for a route is not the same as creating holds for a route. I don't know why I am even entertaining this with a reply lmao.

 Have you even climbed at Funky Town or are you another A V who is shouting beta on route you've never been on? Again, what exactly are you trying to argue?

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

You can interpret it in whatever way you'd like. I've interpreted it in the same way the governing body ultimately did. 

More than anything, my previous post was attempting to allow you to comprehend that there was a law/regulation in existence prior to the "Louie fiasco".....which you originally claimed was false and  have since now said it was actually a law/regulation but is too ambiguous for your liking, as if your interpretation or opinion of the law has any bearing on the conversation or situation. 

Providing protection for a route is not the same as creating holds for a route. I don't know why I am even entertaining this with a reply lmao.

 Have you even climbed at Funky Town or are you another A V who is shouting beta on route you've never been on? Again, what exactly are you trying to argue?

If the law was used to establish drilling for pockets is illegal how come bolting was banned? Why didn't Louie get a fine? Because it wasn't used to disect climber ethics it was used to ban bolting.

Bill Wwrote:

If the law was used to establish drilling for pockets is illegal how come bolting was banned? Why didn't Louie get a fine? Because it wasn't used to disect climber ethics it was used to ban bolting.

It was, in a way, used to ban bolting as a result of manufacturing. 

This conversation started by you saying there was no law/regulation in place. Which you now admit did exist, but is now too ambiguous. It might help everyone, especially yourself, if you could better articulate what exactly you arguing at this point.