Bolts are installations?

PRRosewrote:

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.

It might makes sense to ask that question later if someone sues them over their climbing management policy, likely the court would side with the government and climbers don't have the resources to do it anyway.

But right now, if the NPS wants to call them installations they are installations. The wilderness act is vague on purpose so that local government agencies can use it effectively but within certain boundaries.

Tradibanwrote:

It might makes sense to ask that question later if someone sues them over their climbing management policy, likely the court would side with the government and climbers don't have the resources to do it anyway.

But right now, if the NPS wants to call them installations they are installations. The wilderness act is vague on purpose so that local government agencies can use it effectively but within certain boundaries.

Some of your best troll work, although I get you best as one who will bow to the NPS nary a struggle or a well worded response to the plan.  I mean, you spend sooo much time trying to get a rise out of folks here, you couldn't possibly spend  10 minutes arguing against something obviously anti-climber.  

Not directed towards Putinboy ( I'm waiting for him to change is handle to the one more irritating, since the national theater has moved away from the Taliban ), but read the wilderness act and the DO.  They are actually very short, and like most legislation, in my opinion very much open to interpretation.  I believe both have been linked in this thread.  The most amazing thing I discovered is that climbing is mentioned and protected, as others have pointed out.  Like "literally" mentioned my dudes.  4 wheeling isn't.  Neither is mountain biking, eBiking, slack lining... You get the picture.  Climbing is actually protected under the act.

Putinboy; the thing that's funny is that you say the NPS can do whatever they want?  Did the NPS create "wilderness" or was it an act of Congress?  It is vague and there is room for us to argue.  We should have/should continue to argue with the plan.  We should empower our local and national Orgs to fight whatever is decreed in court.  

The lack of guidlines/law has been and continues to be arbitrary. Allowing power drills in wilderness for rebolting?  Is that allowed when the local Sup says so, but not for new or when the Sup says not?  This is obviously not supported under the act; and by not supported, I mean you can either use power drills or you can't , the local Sup can't modify at will.  Allowing moving of 10's of Joshua trees from the Barker Dam parking lot?  That will get you thousands of dollars in fines 10 miles away in town.  Again, I don't know if its allowed under some NPS Magic, but it is worth asking the questions and challenging the answers.

Climbers aren't the dominate users of the park anymore by a long shot.  I wonder why the time and effort.  The new routes in JT are dwindling and in some ways self correcting.

The fact is, as stated by way more qualified folks than me ( Gunkswest obviously, PRRose and others ), what happens here will set the stage for the rest of the country's climbing restrictions. 

Murfwrote:

Some of your best troll work, although I get you best as one who will bow to the NPS nary a struggle or a well worded response to the plan.  I mean, you spend sooo much time trying to get a rise out of folks here, you couldn't possibly spend  10 minutes arguing against something obviously anti-climber.  

Not directed towards Putinboy ( I'm waiting for him to change is handle to the one more irritating, since the national theater has moved away from the Taliban ), but read the wilderness act and the DO.  They are actually very short, and like most legislation, in my opinion very much open to interpretation.  I believe both have been linked in this thread.  The most amazing thing I discovered is that climbing is mentioned and protected, as others have pointed out.  Like "literally" mentioned my dudes.  4 wheeling isn't.  Neither is mountain biking, eBiking, slack lining... You get the picture.  Climbing is actually protected under the act.

Putinboy; the thing that's funny is that you say the NPS can do whatever they want?  Did the NPS create "wilderness" or was it an act of Congress?  It is vague and there is room for us to argue.  We should have/should continue to argue with the plan.  We should empower our local and national Orgs to fight whatever is decreed in court.  

The lack of guidlines/law has been and continues to be arbitrary. Allowing power drills in wilderness for rebolting?  Is that allowed when the local Sup says so, but not for new or when the Sup says not?  This is obviously not supported under the act; and by not supported, I mean you can either use power drills or you can't , the local Sup can't modify at will.  Allowing moving of 10's of Joshua trees from the Barker Dam parking lot?  That will get you thousands of dollars in fines 10 miles away in town.  Again, I don't know if its allowed under some NPS Magic, but it is worth asking the questions and challenging the answers.

Climbers aren't the dominate users of the park anymore by a long shot.  I wonder why the time and effort.  The new routes in JT are dwindling and in some ways self correcting.

The fact is, as stated by way more qualified folks than me ( Gunkswest obviously, PRRose and others ), what happens here will set the stage for the rest of the country's climbing restrictions. 

I literally lol'd when I saw that the NPS is considering taking sides in the whole trad v. sport thing but strangely I think they "get" it and are moving in the right direction.

Obviously they feel bolts are a problem, why isn't exactly clear but I'm sure they are getting an earful about it. This is a democracy so I'm sure the best compromise available will win out in the end.

You like climbing, cool, it makes you money, cool! Just stop mainstreaming it, its actually ruining climbing! 

Tradibanwrote:

This is a democracy so I'm sure the best compromise available will win out in the end.

I literally lol'd when I saw that the NPS is considering taking sides in the whole trad v. sport thing but strangely I think they "get" it and are moving in the right direction.

Obviously they feel bolts are a problem, why isn't exactly clear but I'm sure they are getting an earful about it. This is a democracy so I'm sure the best compromise available will win out in the end.

I don’t see it as the NPS taking sides in the sport vs trad debate. All federal land managers basically want less people on federal lands. Less people = less problems, no people = no problems. Their excuse is that they want to protect and preserve natural and cultural resources, and there’s a degree of truth to that. But there are immense tracts of BLM, USFS, and Fish and Wildlife land that really see no human activity due to their inaccessibility.

Both the BLM and USFS have syrupy mission statements that say they want to promote public recreation, but the reality is that they make it almost as hard as possible with regulations against trail building, ebikes, hunting, off road driving, disturbing raptors, and possibly bolting. Most BLM parcels are surrounded by private land, most roads have locked gates, and both BLM and USFS lands have a high percentage of “Wilderness Study Areas” where access is limited for a variety of reasons.

Climbers happen to be one of the most adventurous, fit, and terrain adaptable user groups, and as such they pose a threat, not so much to the land as to land managers’ mission to control human activity. Outlawing  bolting is an easy way to stop climbing activity.

Compared to the other impacts humans have made on the environment, a bolt installation is pathetically insignificant - absolutely no real adverse effect on the environment, other than visual, and I’d guess 99% of bolts have never been seen by anybody other than a climber. And most of those climbers are happy to see them. Simply requiring camouflaged hangers would make the small percentage of bolts that the general public might be offended by effectively invisible.

There are legitimate reasons to regulate bolting, and climbing in areas where lots of people are looking for a natural wilderness experience, but those areas are all within sight of an established trail that’s within a mile or so from the car, or in a Native American cultural site.

Regulating bolting = reducing public enjoyment of public land. Reducing public enjoyment of public land reduces the responsibilities of land managers. That saves the feds money. Plus most land managers by nature are authoritarian figures who like to control others.

Any climber who cheers bolting bans for their own personal reasons is acting against fundamental aspects of the climbing spirit, IMHO. The old adage that the first rule of climbing is there are no rules comes to mind. Botched bolt jobs, squeeze jobs, and over bolted routes have always been ridiculed, and sometimes removed, usually by experienced and influential climbers. In this way climbers have regulated themselves successfully for decades.

Climbers who personally object to bolts in general, or sport climbing in particular, are a minor percentage of the modern climbing population, and in a democracy, majority rules. Any climber who, for personal reasons, draws the attention of the general public and land managers to bolt “installations” on public land, that they will never see, is selfishly promoting over regulation of land, land that is fundamentally intended for everybody to enjoy as they choose, without undue damage to the environment.

There are still lots of places where an anti bolt climber can climb without having to look at bolts. They just have to think outside the box, and hike farther. Tolerance is the other option.

Kevin Worrallwrote:

I don’t see it as the NPS taking sides in the sport vs trad debate. All federal land managers basically want less people on federal lands. Less people = less problems, no people = no problems. Their excuse is that they want to protect and preserve natural and cultural resources, and there’s a degree of truth to that. But there are immense tracts of BLM, USFS, and Fish and Wildlife land that really see no human activity due to their inaccessibility.

Both the BLM and USFS have syrupy mission statements that say they want to promote public recreation, but the reality is that they make it almost as hard as possible with regulations against trail building, ebikes, hunting, off road driving, disturbing raptors, and possibly bolting. Most BLM parcels are surrounded by private land, most roads have locked gates, and both BLM and USFS lands have a high percentage of “Wilderness Study Areas” where access is limited for a variety of reasons.

Climbers happen to be one of the most adventurous, fit, and terrain adaptable user groups, and as such they pose a threat, not so much to the land as to land managers’ mission to control human activity. Outlawing  bolting is an easy way to stop climbing activity.

Compared to the other impacts humans have made on the environment, a bolt installation is pathetically insignificant - absolutely no real adverse effect on the environment, other than visual, and I’d guess 99% of bolts have never been seen by anybody other than a climber. And most of those climbers are happy to see them. Simply requiring camouflaged hangers would make the small percentage of bolts that the general public might be offended by effectively invisible.

There are legitimate reasons to regulate bolting, and climbing in areas where lots of people are looking for a natural wilderness experience, but those areas are all within sight of an established trail that’s within a mile or so from the car, or in a Native American cultural site.

Regulating bolting = reducing public enjoyment of public land. Reducing public enjoyment of public land reduces the responsibilities of land managers. That saves the feds money. Plus most land managers by nature are authoritarian figures who like to control others.

Any climber who cheers bolting bans for their own personal reasons is acting against fundamental aspects of the climbing spirit, IMHO. The old adage that the first rule of climbing is there are no rules comes to mind. Botched bolt jobs, squeeze jobs, and over bolted routes have always been ridiculed, and sometimes removed, usually by experienced and influential climbers. In this way climbers have regulated themselves successfully for decades.

Climbers who personally object to bolts in general, or sport climbing in particular, are a minor percentage of the modern climbing population, and in a democracy, majority rules. Any climber who, for personal reasons, draws the attention of the general public and land managers to bolt “installations” on public land, that they will never see, is selfishly promoting over regulation of land, land that is fundamentally intended for everybody to enjoy as they choose, without undue damage to the environment.

There are still lots of places where an anti bolt climber can climb without having to look at bolts. They just have to think outside the box, and hike farther. Tolerance is the other option.

Y'all must let go of the idea that bolts are visually unappealing and that's why they are under attack, that's not the problem. The problem is A. What they are, a man made intrusion on a wilderness setting and B. What they represent, the idea that climbers can do what they want in a wilderness setting and other users cant. This concept is the conundrum for land managers.

I appreciate your opinions and thoughts Kevin Worrall. I've always appreciated your accomplishments in the life of climbing, your approach and your dedication to back country climbing. I truly do. But I find myself in disagreement with some of the ideas you present below. No disrespect intended...

Both the BLM and USFS have syrupy mission statements that say they want to promote public recreation, but the reality is that they make it almost as hard as possible with regulations against trail building, ebikes, hunting, off road driving, disturbing raptors, and possibly bolting. 

For designated wilderness areas I applaud their efforts.

Compared to the other impacts humans have made on the environment, a bolt installation is pathetically insignificant - absolutely no real adverse effect on the environment, other than visual, and I’d guess 99% of bolts have never been seen by anybody other than a climber. And most of those climbers are happy to see them. Simply requiring camouflaged hangers would make the small percentage of bolts that the general public might be offended by effectively invisible.

This ignores the impact of the climbers those bolts bring in - trails, ebikes, disturbing raptors, chalk everywhere, etc. These things are quite visible.

Any climber who cheers bolting bans for their own personal reasons is acting against fundamental aspects of the climbing spirit, IMHO. 

If doing what ever we want, when ever we want, on any patch of public land we want, is the spirit of climbing, and I admit it is just that for many climbers, then yes I am against this fundamental aspect of the climbing spirit. We the Climbers are not self-regulating.

Botched bolt jobs, squeeze jobs, and over bolted routes have always been ridiculed, and sometimes removed, usually by experienced and influential climbers. In this way climbers have regulated themselves successfully for decades. 

Trouble is, experienced and influential climbers abandoned this job decades back.

Climbers who personally object to bolts in general, or sport climbing in particular, are a minor percentage of the modern climbing population, and in a democracy, majority rules.

Tyranny of the masses. Along with the trails, and ebikes, and offroad driving... because the crowd wants it. They take it.

The failure to self-regulate is and will continue to force land managers' hands. Think about it this way - if climbers were low-impact, there would be little notice and little reason to regulate us.

Really having a tough time wrapping my head around ;

“climbers doing whatever they want” being related to bolt installation, management, and upkeep. (unless we are talking about a silver Volvo driver)

And

people that think banning bolts in the wilderness, will actually help manage traffic and impact. Anyone who has spent any time in jtree in the last few years, on weekends, would know that exactly what I mean here.

So I’m meant to go along with or be stoked on, a poor band aid solution AT BEST, that sets precedent and new language for threatening climbing access everywhere? It’s not just “sport climbing” or “sports climbers” that could be significantly and negatively impacted here, in terms climbing user groups.

I want to hear everyone’s opinions, respect them, and try to understand them, but some feel so one dimensional, ignoring all of the data in a thoughtful post like gunkswests, that I can’t help think of the troll and Trevor’s axiom dynamics. I need to significantly lower my expectations for what mountain project forums can be. I guess the future of climbing conversations really is marketing vids on tik tok.

The compromise is, as it had already been written, daily/weekly permits, and bolting permits for the wilderness. Simple, done, everyone wins, nothing changes except for the regulation of traffic, which is the core of "everyone's" problem with climbers. 

Cole Darbywrote:

Tradiban would you be happier if we drilled holes into the rock for totem placements?

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

  

Tradiban would you be happier if we drilled holes into the rock for totem placements?

Now there's a compromise!

Saw this on reddit r/climbing. Red rock craft boulders. here we are arguing about bolts being considered an  installation or not. Maybe Land managers should ban bouldering pads instead. 

J Rwrote:

Saw this on reddit r/climbing. Red rock craft boulders. here we are arguing about bolts being considered an  installation or not. Maybe Land managers should ban bouldering pads instead. 

I think land managers would consider it a win if 20 people stood around a small boulder for a day. It especially seems better than walking through a fragile canyon, having to worry about people disrupting falcons or people ripping choss off walls for new routes.

Yeah those land managers really want to protect falcon chicks from those rowdy rock climbers! They’re such sensitive birds and such an important part of the ecosystem!

But if you’re a falconer, you can pay them a few bucks to take a chick right out of the nest

Let’s keep this bouldering versus sport climbing versus trad climbing thing going full steam.

Best way to protect climbing access for sure! 

Cole Darbywrote:

Really having a tough time wrapping my head around ;

“climbers doing whatever they want” being related to bolt installation, management, and upkeep. (unless we are talking about a silver Volvo driver).

The NPS can't allow any user group to do whatever they want, that would be chaos. Feel lucky that climbing has gotten a pass all these years.

As for the comparison to roads, signs, paths etc in the park, those are all NPS "installations", they can install what they want if they can wedge it under their mission. Perhaps if the NPS supervised and managed the bolts themselves, then bolts could be legitimized.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I think land managers would consider it a win if 20 people stood around a small boulder for a day. It especially seems better than walking through a fragile canyon, having to worry about people disrupting falcons or people ripping choss off walls for new routes.

Its a nice thought but the amount of vegetation trampling that goes on within a 1/4 mile of each boulder in the desert doesn't go unnoticed by the man. 

J Rwrote:

Saw this on reddit r/climbing. Red rock craft boulders. here we are arguing about bolts being considered an  installation or not. Maybe Land managers should ban bouldering pads instead. 

Geezus that’s a bunch of people wrestling that pebble.  I hope they win.

I’m for banning bouldering pads, bolts and cars in national parks.  Imagine if yellow stone, Yosemite. Zion, or the great smokies just had a parking lot at the edge of it.   Make access by foot or saddle the only way in and all these issues go away.