Fixed Anchors & Wilderness

Thanks Scott, the Access Fund, and NAZCC! Curious how the word permanent is defined in regards to fixed anchors as this is clearly a misnomer. Do the Feds use that word as a scare tactic to get the wilderness nuts riled up, and to justify all this fuss? 

Here are some of my guesses about how these new regulations may play out:

Apparently, the agencies believe that the old ban on motorized drills did not work to prevent fixed anchors in wilderness. (They may be right.)

1.)  It appears to me that they want to completely ban all fixed anchors [i.e climbing] in wilderness—but do not want to say it out loud.   It will create too much controversy. 

2.)  It appears to me that the agencies will need to vastly step up their enforcement.

There are only a handful of climbers who put up routes. Get the local climbing organization (LCO) to cooperate with identity and information. Use Mountain Project and guidebooks to 

target one prolific individual, ticket them and make an airtight case, beg the judge to impose a harsh sentence—ban them from the forest, fine them and maybe seek jail time. (A public defender need not need be appointed if they do not seek jail time.  Few climbers can afford to hire their own attorney.)

Make an example out of a one serial driller in each district—and the others hearts and minds will surely follow.

3.)  It appears to me that ostentatious, densely bolted routes that already exist in wilderness may  be removed.  

Get the LCO to cooperate in identifying routes and removing hangers.  It is easy to remove hangers. The bolts are very hard to see.  The LCO gets to keep the booty. No hangers; no climb; no climbers; no impact.  (I fear a myriad of litigation could ensue.)

4.)  It appears to me that requests for new “authorized” routes = DENIED.

No new routes need be authorized---since the climbers have plenty of climbing in non-wilderness areas of the district—at least in the agencies mind.

5.)  It appears to me that in prominent climbing areas, a climbing management plan will soon be forthcoming for both wilderness and non-wilderness areas.  (Though I have been concerned about this for years and it has only happened in a small number of places.)

6.) It appears to me that this “unauthorized installation” philosophy will prevail and be a guiding principle for the future for both wilderness and non-wilderness areas.  

For better or worse, some of the agencies appear to want total control.

Let me give one example.  In Saguaro National Park no off trail hiking is permitted under 4500 feet.  https://www.nps.gov/sagu/planyourvisit/rules-and-regulations.htm

This basically means that the majority of Saguaro National Park West (25,000 acres) is off limits to the public.  This seems rather startling to me.

Maybe those removable bolts will become really popular.

Or developers can just chisel a shallow black totem crack every 5 feet. 

Pernell Tomasi wrote:

Darren Mabe, what a cowinky-dink, so did an angle grinder that I know. All the rage. ;)

I tell you what Pernell Tomasi, how about you meet me out there and we can discuss it. (Ideally it happens before the fact). I will be there tomorrow. Maybe I can give you a few pointers on how to remove/patch a bolt properly because your workmanship is some of the worst I've seen. There's plenty more to practice on including the ones I already replaced. 

Drill a hole every 10 feet. Big enough to put a small cam in. Climb away !

jbak xwrote:

Drill a hole every 10 feet. Big enough to put a small cam in. Climb away !

Can just use a normal hole, really: cmcpro.com/equipment/remova…

slo tawrote:

Can just use a normal hole, really: cmcpro.com/equipment/remova…

Supposedly. I've had a couple get stuck.

i'm always amazed by the complete and utter lack of understanding of the subject, in this case climbing, by government officials.  one has to wonder who comes up with the wording and definitions of these documents and the absolute absurdity of it all:

'Historically and currently, specialized anchoring equipment and ropes are used while climbing to
reduce the risk of a consequential fall. Anchors may be temporary and removable, or they may
be permanently affixed to the climbing surface (i.e., a “fixed anchor”). The most common kind
of fixed anchor is a fixed bolt, which is a type of permanent anchor that is fixed into a hole
drilled in the rock. Other types of fixed anchors or fixed equipment that may be left behind after
the installer leaves the wilderness include but are not limited to pitons, slings, fixed ropes, and
ice screws.' (nps draft reference manual 41, section 1)

who on earth would consider a $50+ ice screw a fixed anchor?  i can't think of anybody who would leave one behind in a non-emergency, regular climbing situation...  heck, the medium, ice, is a temporary state/condition!

what would ice climbing in a dystopian nps future look like?  

oh, i only have a permit to put in four screws, the ten i asked for was denied.  better suck it up - two for the pitch, two for the anchor!  

...or maybe: my MRA doesn't allow for a nice ice screw in that fat formation over there, it's five feet too far to the left!  

then there is the - after going through a rigorous application process for the last month and a half, my permit says i can place ten screws on this climb today!  unfortunately, today, it's all melted out...

i'll join you guys for that virtual drink...

Pernell Tomasi wrote:

Darren Mabe, what a cowinky-dink, so did an angle grinder that I know. All the rage. ;)

Hey PERNELL TOMASI I need to take a look at the installations you’ve been enjoying and rapping from in the Grand Canyon national park; are there more than the ones you’ve sprayed about on mountain project, with your pics, ticks, and contributions?  I want to confirm you are getting approval for everything you are climbing, posting, and enjoying IN A NATIONAL PARK. What a hypocrite. 

This is a quote from PERNELL TOMASI about a rappel anchor in Grand Canyon National Park:

“Rapping from the dead tree is silly and all of the tatapus has been removed from its base. There's a 40m rap anchor directly above the East Face route,”

so funny PERNELL did you forget your angle grinder that day?

I guess rapping from trees is silly WHEN IT SUITS YOU even if the installation you need for your special adventures is in a sacred, overused National Park?  

slo tawrote:

Can just use a normal hole, really: cmcpro.com/equipment/remova…

Nothing says adventure like searching for a 3/8" hole at the end of a 20' runout

Jim Malonewrote:

Nothing says adventure like searching for a 3/8" hole at the end of a 20' runout

1/2"

Darren Mabewrote:

1/2"

ahh, what the hell - 1/4" ;-)

With what permission are you drilling new anchors in GCNP?  You are right PERNELL I’m such a nitwit that I’m going to contact GCNP to have them explain to me why it is you can install anchors wherever you like in the backcountry. I’ll report back you hypocrite. And no I don’t drill. Too nitwitty I guess. 

jbak xwrote:

Drill a hole every 10 feet. Big enough to put a small cam in. Climb away !

V threads

Only if you send me a signed copy of your guide. You do so much to purify and elevate the wilderness experience!  Spray on. 

Wouldn't it be cool if our climbing tribal elders (referring to developers here) could have mature conversations about how to interact and engage with land managers instead of devolving into name-calling, shit-talking and odd comments that somehow sound like threats?

Anonanomanom Yerpwrote:

Wouldn't it be cool if our climbing tribal elders (referring to developers here) could have mature conversations about how to interact and engage with land managers instead of devolving into name-calling, shit-talking and odd comments that somehow sound like threats?

That was actually pretty mild compared to how it used to be.

Here is my letter to the Park Service.  I filed it today (12/18/2023).  The comment period ends January 16, 2024.

Apparently, the old ban on motorized drills did not work sufficiently to prevent fixed anchors in wilderness.  This was because it was rarely enforced and not a priority.

It is abundantly clear that these new regs effectively ban all climbing in wilderness.   This is rather ironic since the Wilderness Act probably would not exist without the efforts of David Brower—a prolific wilderness climber.  Moreover he was involved in the first use of bolts for protection---(1939, Shiprock).

These new regs create another edict that cannot be enforced.

Agencies neither have the time, money nor manpower to enforce compliance.  

A close reading of these regs reveal that wilderness climbing is simply poorly understood by the agencies.  For example, making it illegal to leave a piece of Perlon and a rap ring to retreat from the third pitch of an obscure wilderness route that dead ends---is just nuts.  That piece of Perlon tat is unlikely to ever be seen again by anyone.

The agencies will need to vastly step up their enforcement. Even if they could, it will create ill will in the climbing community.  It will alienate a growing constituency—at a time when outdoor agencies need allies rather than enemies.  

Working with local climbing organizations to solve problems locally would be far better than imposing edicts.

Historically, this "unauthorized installation" philosophy was never meant for climbing anchors.  We all know that.  It is merely a ham handed, poorly thought out interpretation that was grafted on to an existing set of regulations in an effort to gain control over a problem that was never properly addressed.

Frankly, I fear these new regulations will be honored more in their breach.  Climbers are unlikely to see a spectacular line, go back home, fill out an application and wait months for approval. 

In my view, the proposed regulations will teach "ranger danger" rather than respect. 

And climbers will adapt.  New routes will continue to go up--- but they will neither be documented  nor have names associated with them.  This is already occurring in one nationally prominent park area.

Removing existing routes, that have been previously documented in guidebooks, is going to result in accidents.  An inexperienced climber goes out, guidebook in hand, and starts up a route believing that the fixed anchors "are up there somewhere" and gets killed.  While agencies may have sovereign immunity---the deliberate removal of fixed anchors starts to get much closer to extreme indifference.

Agencies would be far better served by working to emphasize clean climbing with minimal anchors left behind.  They need to show climbers why their routes are creating problems. 

A positive teaching relationship between the agencies and climbers would probably result in far better outcomes.  Agencies need to be on Mountain Project explaining their problems, showing pictures, urging minimal impact, and encouraging clean climbing and a close cooperation.

For all these reasons and probably several more, I think it would be best to defer these regs until the problems are better documented and understood.  I think climbers create problems for the agencies not out of malevolence but out of historical practices carried forward,  loving climbing to death and ignorance.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments.