Wilderness areas and fixed anchors: MSM’s take

NBCNews article on death rate in N Cascades

A spectacular but little-visited national park northeast of Seattle has a higher death rate than any other site in the park system, according to an NBC News analysis of 15 years of federal data. And some climbers and guides are worried that without changes at North Cascades National Park, officials could be amplifying its dangers.

Have you driven the road?

As someone who proudly denounces climbing ethics, this isn’t even a knee jerk reaction. There is no real data about climbing in the article, the article totally disregards skiing, hiking, the recent issue with wildfires, and the fact that a accident on that highway might be borderline inaccessible.

Kind of an odd piece of "journalism." The entire premise of the article is that the lack of bolted anchors is some how contributing to deaths and making the park unsafe. Then on at least two occasions the author acknowledges that they do not know the causes of any of the deaths cited in the intro/teaser. The narrative seems to be driven by anonymous guides and those clearly in favor of adding bolts. I am not wading into any of the actual debate, but kind of a meh article in general. Its from an online contributor, so who knows what that means, but seems to be more blog quality than professional journalism. Hard to imagine writing that much on something and trying to make an argument without providing at least one data point, or factual incident related to the argument. Also, interesting the Access Fund is getting behind the bolted anchor push. Is this an access issue, or an ethics issue? 

"The causes of death weren’t listed in the data, which was obtained through a public records request from North Cascades."

"It isn’t clear how many people have been injured in climbing and hiking accidents at North Cascades."

Those stats make no sense.   That only 25,000 people visit the park annually or that there’s a 1 in 30,000 chance you’ll die every time you enter the park.

it’s not Zion but I’d guess there’s a couple 1,000 people in the park on any given summer day.

wonder if that’s only counting unique permitted people either climbers or backpackers, leaving out day hikers and looky-loos.

Seems odd the park service wouldn’t want to correct visitation numbers. Looks like a great way to lose funding.

Agreed, how is it possible for the park to see 25000 visitors annually? Considering a 6-month season that's ~140 visitors per day, which anyone who's driven through will tell you is a stupid number. There's no way to track how many people come through that park - highway 20 goes through and is public, there's no ranger station where you show your pass. And hard lol @ NBC "adjusting for error" by doubling the visitation rate... that's some hard-hitting statistical analysis.

Anyway yes climbing on choss is dangerous. I'd be interested in an apples to apples comparison with the Rockies in CO and CA - maybe someone can process ANAM data. In either case bolts to make descents safer on popular routes make sense and are inevitable.

SLC Tribune’s article about bolts in wilderness areas.

For all the bolting I have done, I am kind of for no bolts in Wilderness. Can't we have some portions of the earth not fucked over by humans? The rub is defining "Wilderness" . I don't see how Yosemite Valley is really wilderness anymore, with all the hordes of people and other infrastructure. (not that I think that is a reason to give up on it and places like it, and wreck them more)

Edit - I was being generic using Yosemite Valley as an example. Sorry, wasn't the best to use

My hardline stance is I agree with no bolts in wildernesses if we also agree to have no trails in the wilderness either. The impact both visually and environmentally of trails is monumentally more than bolts - and both are in place solely to facilitate travel through the terrain.

I don't see how Yosemite Valley is really wilderness anymore, with all the hordes of people and other infrastructure.

I thought it’s only wilderness once you get a certain height above the valley, and that the valley floor itself isn’t actually wilderness?

Tal Mwrote:

My hardline stance is I agree with no bolts in wildernesses if we also agree to have no trails in the wilderness either. The impact both visually and environmentally of trails is monumentally more than bolts - and both are in place solely to facilitate travel through the terrain.

How about overuse of vegetation for anchors? 

Tal Mwrote:

My hardline stance is I agree with no bolts in wildernesses if we also agree to have no trails in the wilderness either. The impact both visually and environmentally of trails is monumentally more than bolts - and both are in place solely to facilitate travel through the terrain.

I thought it’s only wilderness once you get a certain height above the valley, and that the valley floor itself isn’t actually wilderness?

https://arcg.is/KTTXj0

Yeah, only above 4,200' that's also above all the roads (along with some other weird exceptions). So for example the Rostrum, Cookie Cliff, Pat and Jack, Five and Dime are all not in the wilderness.

Tal Mwrote:

My hardline stance is I agree with no bolts in wildernesses if we also agree to have no trails in the wilderness either. The impact both visually and environmentally of trails is monumentally more than bolts - and both are in place solely to facilitate travel through the terrain.

I thought it’s only wilderness once you get a certain height above the valley, and that the valley floor itself isn’t actually wilderness?

Wilderness would normally be full of natural game trails