Bolts are installations?

JaredGwrote:

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

Look back one one of my earlier posts.  I use them all the time for putting up new routes.   They are almost useless as permanent protection as the holes are virtually invisible from below.

Greg Barneswrote:

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."

^@Tradiban

Again... If bolts aren't the problem, allow continued development, and then restrict the annual user amount. It's almost like the NPS doesn't realize people fly from around the world to spend money in and around the parks they manage, just to climb rocks! This should be a resource worth promoting, not regulating out of existence. It's terrible to watch Ky regulators miss the massive potential for rock climbing in this state, not to mention weed legalization, and any other natural resource that could be generating funds for impoverished communities. We have no excuses here either, being one of the poorest states in the US. Bolting routes should be regarded as a tourist dollar investment, and lucky for the state, individuals are putting up their own money and time to create these attractions. Wonder how many tax dollars will be gifted to the next big "development project" in your state, all while looking right past the work route developers are doing. It's embarrassing how much money local governments throw away every year. 

Greg Barneswrote:

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.

It doesn't matter what was intended way back when, it only matters how the powers that be use the act to reach their goals.

Climbers can claim that bolts are too small to count as installations but will that convince the NPS? I doubt it.

other natural resource that could be generating funds for impoverished communities.

If we are using our designated wilderness areas to generate funds for impoverished communities we have utterly missed the boat. Equating wilderness area bolting to some revenue stream is a very bad idea, in my opinion.

Tradibanwrote:

It doesn't matter what was intended way back when, it only matters how the powers that be use the act to reach their goals.

Climbers can claim that bolts are too small to count as installations but will that convince the NPS? I doubt it.

What was "intended way back when" is, in fact, extremely important from a legal perspective when it comes to interpreting an ambiguous statute.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

If we are using our designated wilderness areas to generate funds for impoverished communities we have utterly missed the boat. Equating wilderness area bolting to some revenue stream is a very bad idea, in my opinion.

The point was that climbing routes bring money, so regardless of its intention, people travel across the country, or even the planet specifically to go to climbing destinations. Why people don't realize this is a growing sport with real revenue potential is mind blowing. China pays developers to devlope new routes, and people travel there to climb them. Pretty simple equation. This country is falling apart because everything is over regulated, and undervalued, and climbing is right in there with everything and everyone else. We spend more money keeping money away than any country that I know of. Just keep blowing up mountains and getting that good black gold outta there... Definitely the best way to maximize our natural resources. 

Ward Smithwrote:

Look back one one of my earlier posts.  I use them all the time for putting up new routes.   They are almost useless as permanent protection as the holes are virtually invisible from below.

If one needs to see the bolts to follow a line than its probably a contrived line. 

Matthew Jaggerswrote:

The point was that climbing routes bring money, so regardless of its intention, people travel across the country, or even the planet specifically to go to climbing destinations. Why people don't realize this is a growing sport with real revenue potential is mind blowing. China pays developers to devlope new routes, and people travel there to climb them. Pretty simple equation. This country is falling apart because everything is over regulated, and undervalued, and climbing is right in there with everything and everyone else. We spend more money keeping money away than any country that I know of. Just keep blowing up mountains and getting that good black gold outta there... Definitely the best way to maximize our natural resources.

China would love to have you Jaggers. Maybe Russia too, I hear they need more developers, the Russians are literally dying for more sport routes. Namaste.

PRRosewrote:

What was "intended way back when" is, in fact, extremely important from a legal perspective when it comes to interpreting an ambiguous statute.

Only in theory, not reality. It always comes down to the people making the decisions. 

Originalism is a red herring.

Tradibanwrote:

Only in theory, not reality. It always comes down to the people making the decisions. 

Originalism is a red herring.

Apparently, you don't understand originalism. What a surprise.

The point was that climbing routes bring money, so regardless of its intention, people travel across the country, or even the planet specifically to go to climbing destinations. Why people don't realize this is a growing sport with real revenue potential is mind blowing.s

I reject categorically that the potential for a lost revenue stream due to a lack of wilderness-area sport climbing should be factored in to how the national park service regulates designated wilderness areas.

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

I reject categorically that the potential for a lost revenue stream due to a lack of wilderness-area sport climbing should be factored in to how the national park service regulates designated wilderness areas.

I agree for designated wilderness, that was more of a general statement. But again, if the bolts are not the issue and the people are, why not regulate the actual problem?

PRRosewrote:

Apparently, you don't understand originalism. What a surprise.

How so? This isn't a court case, it's a policy debate. The NPS isn't trying to interpret the law, they are using it to meet their goals.

I have been in Joshua tree the last three days. First of all at least 50% of the park is pretty much devoid of trails, climbs, roads, or any reason for humans to wander into it. Today I didn’t see a single climber. I was the first car at the chocolate boulders. When I left 40 cars had parked behind me and they were all just wandering around aimlessly (no judgement). But if the park is aiming at preservation they need to just close a whole area. Even if they chop the bolts there will be 200 people wandering over to the base of that rock.

Not to mention people were on ship rock the other day…. They weren’t climbers.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I have been in Joshua tree the last three days. First of all at least 50% of the park is pretty much devoid of trails, climbs, roads, or any reason for humans to wander into it. Today I didn’t see a single climber. I was the first car at the chocolate boulders. When I left 40 cars had parked behind me and they were all just wandering around aimlessly (no judgement). But if the park is aiming at preservation they need to just close a whole area. Even if they chop the bolts there will be 200 people wandering over to the base of that rock.

Not to mention people were on ship rock the other day…. They weren’t climbers.

The park is waayyyyy larger than most people think; 50% of the park rarely even gets visitors ( think the east side ).  

The old mines have more waste than every bolt that has been or will be placed, all within wilderness.

That "parking area" is due to two things; Samuleson's Rock and the lemming effect ( if two cars park somewhere, 10 more are sure to follow ).  The damage done due to that area and the lack of parking at Barker have caused more damage to the park than any other 3 wilderness climbing areas I can think of.

In '92 climbers may have actually been a land management problem in Joshua Tree.  Now, aside from perhaps the impact from boulder pads, we don't appear to even be an issue.

Side question: what is "ship rock"?

Murfwrote: Side question: what is "ship rock"?

someone told me from a far that the boulder the campers were on was the one closed due to petroglyphs. I think it might be called shipwreck rock.

Aaron K wrote:

Most places in the West have the opposite problem: too many visitors, too many tourist dollars, too many attractions. Sure, making money for some, but also sucking any real organic life out of any community in an attractive area.

Tell that to people who can't find work and rely on the government to eat. We'll trade you if you want. 

More bolts equating feeding the hungry is a good one, I've seen few towns grow from local sport climbs but certainly there are a couple exceptions like maybe Tensleep or...

PRRosewrote:

What was "intended way back when" is, in fact, extremely important from a legal perspective when it comes to interpreting an ambiguous statute.

This is absolutely correct and a huge amount of people here are wrong in thinking that their gut feeling about what an "installation" is matters here. The statute doesn't define installation so Congress's intent in 1964 is the first place the parties would look if the issue of whether a bolt is an installation ever ends up in Federal court.

The relevant statute is 16 USC 1133 and there is basically NO case law where courts have decided what is in and out as to an installation. There is one case from 2006 about a dam being an installation under congress's intent (but both parties agreed to that), and another case from 2017 about a guy who had a grandfathered wilderness exception for his dock not being able to expand his dock to deep water because that would be an additional installation. 

Neither case is very helpful here but the point is it's not as easy of a question as a lot of you think as to whether something is an installation for purposes of the Wilderness Act.

Tradibanwrote:

How so? This isn't a court case, it's a policy debate. The NPS isn't trying to interpret the law, they are using it to meet their goals.

Whatever distinction you are trying to draw between law and policy is non-existent.  Promulgation of the management plan is pursuant to law, and JTNP is required to follow the law, including the Wilderness Act, in creating the management plan. A threshold question is whether bolts are installations for purposes of the Wilderness Act.