Bolts are installations?

Snyder won.

The act of placing bolts is noisy and not very wildernessy 

Neither is seeing rows of perma draws.

A pair of nice glue in rap anchors  at the top of an otherwise inaccessible feature and hidden from the ground would likely be viewed as welcome by most.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Hahah that’s a funny post but I don’t think he did. Losing some sport climbs is a bummer but it’s really not that big a deal. Most sport climbers are too lazy to walk to wilderness anyhow. Like it or not, the NPS can do whatever it wants, including an outright ban on climbing. So better to have some climbing then no climbing. We’re never going to get our way 100%, with this plan or anything in life, so learn to compromise.

I'm more interested in hearing the core rationale. I have a sneaking suspicion that it wouldn't be that cohesive. 

Tradi, fair points though, can't argue any of that, but blowing up one mountain will be a greater impact on the environment than all the climbers for the history of climbing.

Jeff Lutonwrote:

The CMP is about as legit as we can hope for.

Bolts are installations, if you think otherwise you’re awfully stubborn and just wrong. Which don’t get me wrong, you’re totally allowed to be, you just look like an idiot

Do you base that on your interpretation of the Wilderness Act? Are there regulations under the Act that define the term "installation"? Have you reviewed any cases that attempt to construe the definition of "installation"? Any other agency guidance?

PRRosewrote:

Do you base that on your interpretation of the Wilderness Act? Are there regulations under the Act that define the term "installation"? Have you reviewed any cases that attempt to construe the definition of "installation"? Any other agency guidance?

You literally install bolts. That’s about all the definition you need. You’re sounding like some manager trying to keep me from getting my overtime. But to answer all your dumb questions, no. Now that that’s over with, you don’t need a college education to know the difference between a bolt that isn’t installed, and one that is. The ones that are on sport routes and at anchors all over the world that I love clipping are fucking installed. I say that’s an installation whether it’s to the benefit of climbers or not because it’s the truth 

Also relevant in a wilderness act analysis on whether an installation is permissible is whether the activity predated passage of the act. “Adventure” type climbing using limited fixed gear clearly does, bolt intensive sport climbing clearly does not.  It’s not just impact.

Jeff Lutonwrote:

You literally install bolts. That’s about all the definition you need. You’re sounding like some manager trying to keep me from getting my overtime. But to answer all your dumb questions, no. Now that that’s over with, you don’t need a college education to know the difference between a bolt that isn’t installed, and one that is. The ones that are on sport routes and at anchors all over the world that I love clipping are fucking installed. I say that’s an installation whether it’s to the benefit of climbers or not because it’s the truth 

The pertinent part of the Act reads:

Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

"Installation" is not defined (at least not within the Act; that's why I asked if there are regulations or cases interpreting the term). One principle used in interpreting a statute is to look at the dictionary, but therein lies a problem: which definition to use? Certainly one definition could be "an installation is something that is installed." Reasonable, but that isn't the only definition. Other definitions are "machinery or system," "large piece of equipment," "military base," "power plant," and "large piece of art." How are we to know which definition Congress meant?

A principle that courts apply in such situations is to look at the list of things in the statute, and then construe the term in question in a way that makes sense. The Act flatly prohibits commercial enterprises and permanent roads, and generally prohibits certain actions (using motorized vehicles, equipment, motorboats, and landing aircraft) and certain things (temporary roads, structures, and installations).

Looking at the things that are regulated under the Act, what strikes me is that roads and structures are big--or, at least, much bigger than bolts. So, can we definitely conclude that when Congress used the term "installation" it had bolts in mind? Or did it have something larger and more obtrusive--something akin to a temporary road, cabin, antenna, outhouse, dam, or hunting blind--in mind? I doubt Congress meant military base, power plant, or was thinking about artwork when it passed the Act, but it is more than plausible that when it used the term installation it thought it was regulating machinery and large pieces of equipment.

The Act is more than 50 years old. If, in that time, there have been regulations, court cases, or some other type of legal authority that bears on the question, that would be illuminating.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

....Basically, an installation in wilderness is anything man made and left behind unattended for 24 hours...

Is that set forth in a regulation or case? Or is that merely the park staff's interpretation?

I just did a really awesome first ascent. All the bolts are in, but I did not install them.  Don’t fall.

"The FA crew that was out there was like a chippers Hall of Fame. F*#king sad that these guys are still doing this sh#t, and some of them have been doing it for decades.

WTF???" 

https://www.mountainproject.com/area/108482602/the-underground-chasm

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1772094&msg=1826091#msg1826091

Surprised it's taken this long.

Tim McCabewrote:

https://www.mountainproject.com/area/108482602/the-underground-chasm

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1772094&msg=1826091#msg1826091

Surprised it's taken this long.

Louie??

Tradiban wrote:

As it has been stated many times before, it's not the bolts themselves that are the problem, it's the people they bring in. The bolts, trails, signs, etc are the things the NPS can regulate, so that's what they are looking at.

---------------------------------------------

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Yes, this is partly a subjective stance and could be used by a future superintendent to disallow all bolts, but that’s probably not the park’s plan.

---------------------------------------------

Jeff Luton wrote:

The CMP is about as legit as we can hope for. you’re awfully stubborn and just wrong. you look like an idiot

---------------------------------------------

PRRose wrote:

Do you base that on your interpretation of the Wilderness Act? Are there regulations under the Act that define the term "installation"? Have you reviewed any cases that attempt to construe the definition of "installation"? Any other agency guidance?

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

YES. This is kind of tiring. Y’all need to listen in on these meetings, it’s been talked about plenty. 

PRRose wrote:

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

I can’t find the source so I don’t want to say definitively but I’m pretty certain this is official and not just an interpretation. The whole idea of wilderness is that man does not leave a permanent mark.

---------------------------------------------

M Montonya wrote:

Snyder won.

---------------------------------------------

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Losing some sport climbs is a bummer but it’s really not that big a deal. Most sport climbers are too lazy to walk to wilderness anyhow. Like it or not, the NPS can do whatever it wants, including an outright ban on climbing. So better to have some climbing then no climbing. We’re never going to get our way 100%, with this plan or anything in life, so learn to compromise.

---------------------------------------------

The last 2 pages of this thread are very illuminating in terms understanding where folks are coming from. 

I was thinking about that 12 hour documentary about the national parks from Ken Burns. They present what feels like a pretty neutral presentation of one of the core competing ideas of the national parks service. To oversimplify, its the John Muir vs Stephen Mather debate. Are parks meant to be untouched pristine wilderness spaces, ala something like Kings Canyon, or are they meant to be accessible to attempt to maximize the enjoyment of all of the public users ala something like the grand canon rim or valley floor? For me its really hard to say one approach is always the right approach. Ultimately I'm glad there are parks that lean one way and parks that lean the other way. I am glad that yosemite valley is accessible in a way that most of Kings Canyon is not. Seeing Yosemite Valley for the first time was a profoundly spiritual experience and irrevocably changed my life. I am glad you dont have to hike 10-20 miles to see tunnel view. The oversimplification of the Mather argument is you need the masses to get onto their public lands and enjoy them, so that you have a large base of the public who will always value preserving these spaces, which will always be under some kind of threat or attack. In todays world, I currently think we need a more Mather interpretation of public lands. 

What concerns me about this draft CMP is it leans to a strict Muir like interpretation of the wilderness act, in a park that out of the entire parks network, I would say is one of the crown jewels, in terms of climbing and climbing usage. Hearing everyones opinions, it is still my opinion there is no valid reason to subjectively choose to interpret the wilderness and parks acts to disallow bolts. If land managers can use the language of this plan to rescind the allowance of bolts of any kind, I think it's likely some or many of them will. Joshua tree is incredible in that because of the way the roads and parking lots are designed, almost everyone in the park congregates near roads and parking lots. This means you have the Mather style park, but with a 30 min walk, all of the sudden you have a muir park. The irony in this CMP draft is most of the "sport" routes that would become incompatible are in areas that see an incredibly small fraction of the traffic that the areas near the roads and parking lots do. 

There seems to be the impression that by not agreeing with this CMP we are encouraging the wrath of the parks service. There was a public comments period. They were asking for input. Here's something I can finally fully agree with:

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Better to work with them, clueing them in on the nuances of all this, like sport climbs don’t necessarily mean lots of impact. So next time up, get yo comments in, but try and be reasonable too.

---------------------------------------------

If you are a bad faith actor dinosaur from the 70s/80s that actually only cares about reviving a heightened bolt wars, rather than protecting our recreation in wilderness spaces, I don't have much to say. I respect your opinion, but I disagree with it. I agree that period of time was special. (after pitons were blowing out all the cracks, but before all the projecting, bolts, rap bolting, etc) But we've moved on. I think when euro "sport climbers" came over and pissed on everyones lifetime trad projects first go, most people saw which way the wind was headed. Cracks and slabs are great. But the folks that are pushing standards on boulders and sport climbs, also pretty cool. We all love being outside and moving around on rocks. No need to start all the crazy infighting again. My argument is push back against the extremists (no bolts at all or, make the outdoors a gym) and push for the best possible outcome with these CMPs. Subjective interpretations that are favorable to us instead those that can severely hurt us in the future. (even those of us who ONLY climb moderate trad or multi pitch trad) 

A few wording changes in this CMP to make it less vague and broad, a better MRA permit process, better explanations of sport climbing thats not "bolt intensive" or higher impact, instead of just calling all sport climbing bad, some kind of recourse or appeals for climbers where a park manager that misuses language that is too vague or broad. etc certainly some of this is possible, and certainly the parks service would rather have us on board, through our advocacy groups, self policing. It cant be a great use of park resources to have crag cops.

Edit to add;

I think we need to stop relying on lay persons legal interpretations of the wilderness act, things people heard on a call or in a conversation with a parks service personal, our hope that other land managers or the next j tree superintendent won’t use use this plan for climbing bans, and more on the words in the draft CMP and what that could mean for our future enjoyment of rock recreation in the wilderness, in joshua tree and elsewhere.

Gunkswest      
hear hear

Edit to add;

https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA-FSA-Public/usdafiles/Environ-Cultural/wilderness_act.pdf

can someone read all of this and tell me why the bolts are installations argument is pointless?

If you don’t want to read it all then as previously mentioned, up thread, here is the pertinent text;

(b) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, each agency administering any area designated as wilderness shall be responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the area and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.

(c) Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the

Appendix A-20

administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including mea- sures required in emergencies in- volving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.

You can make great subjective arguments either way about what the intent of the word installation is there. A park ranger saying a rock carin is an installation is a reach. when I read that paragraph and replace the word installation with the word climbing bolt, it sounds ridiculous.  To me It was clearly about roads and transportation and vehicles and structures. Bolts allow us to vertically recreate. They have historical precedent. I’m not saying we need to die on that hill, but I don’t think this CMP is objective factual interpretation of the act AT ALL.

Anyway, don’t listen to me. Read Gunkswest’s post and decide for yourself.

I can just hear folks back in 92 or whenever it was saying, “come on guys, registering before every climb you do is perfectly reasonable. No big deal. Let’s not die on this hill” lol 

Wow, are there that many FAs to be had still in the park that need bolts and will anyone be dying to repeat them? 

I just hope for more LEO to write up the squatters, that is some entitled BS IMO

If it's traffic... and not the bolts... why not just create an automated reservation system and allow only whatever level of traffic that's sustainable?

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

If it's traffic... and not the bolts... why not just create an automated reservation system and allow only whatever level of traffic that's sustainable?

The NPS definitely has a recent history of doing just that and it will be the illegal squatters that set it into motion. My experience is as soon as the LEOs feel they can't keep up with illegal activity a reservation system will be coming.

This thread is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. Sure bolts seem like "installations" by the letter of the law, but you need to look at the history of the creation of the Wilderness Act, and the intent of the law.

Installations are roads, buildings, dams, bridges, tramways, etc. No one ever intended small climbing bolts to be considered "installations" when the Wilderness Act was debated and passed. How can any climber claim that bolts are not installations? Easy - they are just too small to count as installations.

To quote David Brower (if you don't know who David Brower is, look him up...one of the greatest conservationists to have ever lived, who helped designate tons of Wilderness areas):

"bolts are tiny and easily removed, and land managers have no business telling climbers what to do with bolts when they routinely allow and encourage logging, mining, grazing, oil drilling, and paving the parks for RVs and tour buses. Some environmentalists claiming to hold the moral high ground while attacking the use of bolts by climbers should look in the mirror and deal with real issues like pollution, global warming, stopping development, wilderness preservation, etc."

It's not the bolts that create impact, its the people the bolts attract that create impact. 

deal with real issues like pollution, global warming, stopping development, wilderness preservation, etc.

Things have changed, ie the numbers of climbers. Browers argument is increasingly being trampled by the tragedy of the commons. I'd settle for an aggressively enforced power tool ban.

Anybody remember removable bolts?  Could be the next SLCDs.  FAists just need to drill the holes.

Edit: You could drill a V-thread for the top anchor