Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Again how would that actually happen. Are they going to have security cameras pointed at every crack, chicken head, tree or boulder? The moment you leave a sling behind the NPS paratrooper drops out of the sky and sends you straight to jail.

I think that making an important part of our sport illegal is bad for all of us, even if it's not enforced in individual instances. If the proposed policies are passed, then not only will climbing advocates have to overcome all the normal objections to climbing, but land managers will also claim that we're rule breakers. This will lead to more climbing bans.

Write comments, write your congresspeople. There may be reasonable ways to regulate climbing in wilderness but this particular proposed policy is bad and we should oppose it.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Again how would that actually happen. Are they going to have security cameras pointed at every crack, chicken head, tree or boulder? The moment you leave a sling behind the NPS paratrooper drops out of the sky and sends you straight to jail.

I realize that this was a high profile case, but Smith and Cosgrove were observed by NPS law enforcement by telescope. Rumor is that the NPS was tipped off by other climbers.

It is not hard to imagine that similar situations could occur on other well traveled “Wilderness” cliffs, especially if the NPS or USFS want to make an example.

Also, it is not unheard of land managers paying sympathetic/broke climbers to remove existing fixed gear. This conversation is taking place right  now in the Bighorns to erase routes deemed to be illegal.  And, this is not even Wilderness. 

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Again how would that actually happen. Are they going to have security cameras pointed at every crack, chicken head, tree or boulder? The moment you leave a sling behind the NPS paratrooper drops out of the sky and sends you straight to jail.

As I said it will be random, maybe by chance, maybe a sting similar to what happened to Smith and Cosgrove. But there will be enforcement against some unfortunate individuals, which will have a chilling effect on all. Pretty typical law enforcement activity.

Long Rangerwrote:

Cycling wasn't explicitly banned in Wilderness either, yet here we are. 

Can anyone give any honest argument why paragliding is banned in Wilderness? It's not mechanical, there's no motor.

For fun I did some searching and found this which tries to explain things:
https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness/toolboxes/documents/tools/Mechanization%20in%20Wilderness.pdf

Mechanical is broader than motorized in the law. Though how broadly you define "mechanical" seems debatable.

Reading the current NPS interpretation for "Mechanical Transport" it seems pretty clear that hauling with a 2:1 should be banned as well:

Mechanical Transport: Any vehicle, device, or contrivance for moving people or material in or over land, water, snow, ice, or air that has moving parts as essential components of the transport and which apply a mechanical advantage, regardless of power source ...

Alan Rubinwrote:

How the hell can you know in advance what you may have to leave behind, either during a retreat or in a descent off a technical peak or formation?

Seems what I read, they are talking intentional and deliberate “installations” that are intended to be long term fixtures.  not an emergency bail.  Go up and get your stuff later if it was a bail.  

It sounds like some are thinking there’s gonna be Rangers posted at every trailhead just waiting to give the baton to someone with an unpermitted ice screw in their pack , lol   

Austin Donisanwrote:

For fun I did some searching and found this which tries to explain things:
https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness/toolboxes/documents/tools/Mechanization%20in%20Wilderness.pdf

With a thick coat of bias as it's written by an interest group.

Mechanical is broader than motorized in the law. Though how broadly you define "mechanical" seems debatable.

Or if I may introduce a concept, "arbitrary"

Reading the current NPS interpretation for "Mechanical Transport" it seems pretty clear that hauling with a 2:1 should be banned as well:

I would agree, but again wouldn't many parts of the rigging of a sailboat also meet the definition of, "mechanical"? (winches)? And how are sails on a sailboat OK, but sails used in other circumstances (a parachute) not OK?

There's no science behind this - if climber's aren't worried about fixed gear being banned in Wilderness, I would sincerely think seriously about the possibility. Bicycles were OK in Wilderness until the 80's. Definitions were changed. It could (will?) happen again. Someone - probably someone who has never climbed - will have that power to change it.

Austin Donisanwrote:

Reading the current NPS interpretation for "Mechanical Transport" it seems pretty clear that hauling with a 2:1 should be banned as well:

Wouldn't horses count as a 'mechanical advantage?'

Long Rangerwrote:

With a thick coat of bias as it's written by an interest group.

Or if I may introduce a concept, "arbitrary"

I would agree, but again wouldn't many parts of the rigging of a sailboat also meet the definition of, "mechanical"? (winches)? And how are sails on a sailboat OK, but sails used in other circumstances (a parachute) not OK?

There's no science behind this - if climber's aren't worried about fixed gear being banned in Wilderness, I would sincerely think seriously about the possibility. Bicycles were OK in Wilderness until the 80's. Definitions were changed. It could (will?) happen again. Someone - probably someone who has never climbed - will have that power to change it.

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55a5b885e4b01aa3dd8fd254/t/55c611aee4b03257969c9291/1439044014588/Penn+State+Law+Review+TS.pdf
For something arguing the other side. I really don't have an opinion about what the right reading is.

Sailboats are also explicitly banned though. The list of banned things seems consistent to me, although the the line is arbitrary.

Austin Donisanwrote:

Sailboats are also explicitly banned though. The list of banned things seems consistent to me, although the the line is arbitrary.

Sorry - you're right, I misread that. 

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Again how would that actually happen. Are they going to have security cameras pointed at every crack, chicken head, tree or boulder? The moment you leave a sling behind the NPS paratrooper drops out of the sky and sends you straight to jail.

Drones.

They will not have cameras or drones.  Instead, the NPS will impose blanket bans on new route development and existing anchor replacement pending further review.  In most cases the further review will never happen because the local NPS unit doesn’t have the necessary resources or interest in doing anything associated with a fringe user group.  

Mark Pilatewrote:

Seems what I read, they are talking intentional and deliberate “installations” that are intended to be long term fixtures.  not an emergency bail.  Go up and get your stuff later if it was a bail.  

It sounds like some are thinking there’s gonna be Rangers posted at every trailhead just waiting to give the baton to someone with an unpermitted ice screw in their pack , lol   

The fact that ice screws and pickets are mentioned as possible 'installations' undercuts your interpretation.

No, rangers won't be 'posted at every trailhead' , but, as I wrote previously, some rangers, in some locations, will take occasional enforcement actions--more often in certain locations than others. As a result some climbers will be penalized--some will be 'blatant offenders' , others will just have the bad luck to be 'caught'. The penalties won't be severe, but will still have an impact ( not likely anyone, except multiple 'repeat offenders' , will go to jail, but there will be financial costs that, depending on the circumstances, could be relatively significant). The main purpise will be to 'make an example' of these individuals to deter others---and to some extent it will 'work'---some will still proceed as before the ban, but many, likely most, won't want to risk the hassle and will opt to stay away altogether.

Similarly, no, you won't see armies of rangers in all parks immediately fanning out to remove all existing fixed gear, but there will be some rangers, in some parks and forests, who will undertake such missions when they can---once again to 'set an example'.

jbak xwrote:

Drones.

Yeah but I think need the president or Congress to actually approve the strike so I think you'll be fine.

Connor Dobsonwrote:

Yeah but I think need the president or Congress to actually approve the strike so I think you'll be fine.

I laugh. But think about it. Small silent drones could easily track your car and then track you into the forest. And they could inventory cliff faces efficiently. I've been buzzed by drones more than once at wilderness crags. Operated by tourists, but still.

jbak xwrote:

I laugh. But think about it. Small silent drones could easily track your car and then track you into the forest. And they could inventory cliff faces efficiently. I've been buzzed by drones more than once at wilderness crags. Operated by tourists, but still.

NPS can barely manage parks, they won't be sending drones to inventory cliff faces but I do agree that proposed plan is not good legally for climbing. Just poking fun that the law as written is mostly unenforceable for actual backcountry true wilderness routes.

No need for speculation.  We now already know what will happen - Joshua Tree National Park is already planning to remove long established runout face routes.  How?  By disallowing bolt replacement.  
earlier C Miller wrote:  >  Taken from the comments of [I can't believe it's a girdle] in Joshua Tree National Park:

This is not a good sign.  Having watched the video presentation of a JTNP meeting on this issue a year ago, I feared that the process looked like it would be dominated by extremists who can find impacts anywhere, with no consideration of reasonableness.

Make climbing outlaw again... can't help but think this might help toughen up climbers and get them back to their dirtbag roots. From the looks of this thread there are too many climbers who think they're lawyers in this world.

I appreciate that Gov. Polis is a member of the Access Fund.

We need less government, by trillions of dollars.

The future: Go trad, or go bouldering.  

They say bolts are climbers way of finagling a chink into the armor of the Wilderness Act.  A bolt ban is is a further step the government is taking to remove your rights.  

What's the next thing you wont be allowed to do?  

Stileswrote:

I appreciate that Gov. Polis is a member of the Access Fund.

We need less government, by trillions of dollars.

The future: Go trad, or go bouldering.  

They say bolts are climbers way of finagling a chink into the armor of the Wilderness Act.  A bolt ban is is a further step the government is taking to remove your rights.  

What's the next thing you wont be allowed to do?  

Ok Captain Libertarian, some nice "jump to conclusions and conflate things" stuff there. Do you really think there's a widespread conspiracy that involves bolting to remove your rights, or more likely is it overworked and underpaid/resourced land managers taking the easy way out and eliminating a workstream?

Stileswrote:

A bolt ban is is a further step the government is taking to remove your rights.  

Exactly what 'right' is being removed here?