Fixed Anchors & Wilderness

^^^^^^ Thanks, Scott, for your wisdom and for your efforts!

Wow, Scott!  I hope they get through it and take the points to heart.  My letter was 3 sentences.  

Pernell Tomasi wrote:

j mo, In the PM you sent me four days ago, you state "I love a good debate".

Please let us all know what you've climbed and/or hiked in the Grand Canyon and then we can go from there?

And eventually we can get to the threats that you and Darren directed towards me.

Pernell, this is my last response to you because as I told you when I tried, and failed, to communicate with you in civil fashion off line, you are simply interested in insulting and harassing.

Maybe give the internet a rest for a while?

Sorry if I struck a nerve  

Hi Pernell,

Hope all is well.

Happy Holidays!

I really do not know which is better:

  1.)  A thousand form letters from the Access Fund, American Alpine Club and LCOs; or,

  2.) Well thought out personal letters.

Probably both are a good thing.

I would like new, young climbers to be able to have some of the experiences that I had over the years---scaring the shit out of myself!

Best,

Scott Mc

Scott M. McNamarawrote:

I would like new, young climbers to be able to have some of the experiences that I had over the years---scaring the shit out of myself!

I'm sure they will get their chance. Probably a few routes that might even be more scary without fixed protection. Or maybe Messner gets to witness the 'resurrection of the impossible'

Top 3 scariest moment for me was at mill creek on a bolted route. I swore if I got to the top I would never climb again. That lasted about 15 minutes but my broader point remains; don’t try to dictate how others enjoy outdoor spaces. Your tat may be horrific to someone, another person may find that mill creek bolt reprehensible. It is time for climbers to unite not divide. There is way too much toxicity and division in the world. We don’t need it here. 

Erik Murdock from the ACCESS FUND has given a nice explanation of what is happening, how it may effect climbing and how you can help:

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5YwbHRh0YPaGP6D4hDqgY5?si=bFipg2xQTK2AOba6IT1kvg&nd=1&dlsi=1871aa8deb89470d

JaredGwrote:

Maybe those removable bolts will become really popular.

Fwiw it's not so bad to hand drill a hole for the Climbtech RBs bc you only have to go like 1.5 inches deep. 

This stuff has been in the air for a while now. On advice from counsel my behavior on MP has changed. If I replace an ancient bolt I don't report it. If I move an unsafe bolt I don't report it. I no longer use my name when reporting new routes. I don't discuss drills or trails. 

I don't do new routes. I never drill. I don't make trails or improve approaches. In fact I only climb in the gym. Yeah.

Is there a statute of limitations at play here ?

Scott M. McNamarawrote:

Hi Pernell,

Hope all is well.

Happy Holidays!

I really do not know which is better:

  1.)  A thousand form letters from the Access Fund, American Alpine Club and LCOs; or,

  2.) Well thought out personal letters.

Probably both are a good thing.

I would like new, young climbers to be able to have some of the experiences that I had over the years---scaring the shit out of myself!

Best,

Scott Mc

Option #2 is the best, Scott. And the AF would say the same, I'd wager. Those form letters often get counted together as a single vote for a stance--even when thousands were sent. It's better to write a short letter using the AF's talking points and tailor it to your local situation and issues.

We have till JANUARY 16 to comment people! 

Golly, those wilderness spire routes are going to be a bitch to descend without fixed anchors

Darren Mabewrote:

Golly, those wilderness spire routes are going to be a bitch to descend without fixed anchors

Down climb, simultaneously rap off each side etc.

Ackley The Improvedwrote:

Down climb, simultaneously rap off each side etc.

Oh be serious.

Scott M. McNamarawrote:

Hi Pernell,

Hope all is well.

Happy Holidays!

I really do not know which is better:

  1.)  A thousand form letters from the Access Fund, American Alpine Club and LCOs; or,

  2.) Well thought out personal letters.

Probably both are a good thing.

I would like new, young climbers to be able to have some of the experiences that I had over the years---scaring the shit out of myself!

Best,

Scott Mc

Hi Scott,

Based on my fairly extensive experience with similar issues, well thought out personal letters are usually best. 

Ranger gonna have to prove you put in anchor and then in some situations they would have to use the anchors to get evidence. Drones aren’t allowed in wilderness.

Ackley The Improvedwrote:

 Drones aren’t allowed in wilderness.

They could give themselves permission.

jbak xwrote:

They could give themselves permission.

Doubt they want the lawsuits. Not that important.

I’ve been following this thread and the corresponding thread under “General Climbing” for some time, but a bout with covid and time put into the comments I plan to submit to NPS & FS have kept me from adding my two cents.  But time is running out to comment and I’m dismayed that the climbing community still seems to be largely sleeping on this issue, so:

Again, the deadline is January 16 at midnight.  As of this morning, the FS web log shows only 949 comments submitted.  I assume many of these are from fixed-anchor-ban advocates.  Those of us who want to preserve our and other’s opportunities to use fixed anchors in Wilderness, as we have been doing for now 60 years — and specifically for decades in Southern Arizona, must step up.  If the proposed guidance stands as written, every sport route and possibly many trad routes reliant on fixed anchors in the Pusch Ridge Wilderness will effectively be erased in a matter of years, and new route development in Wilderness will largely end (more on this in a sec).  Maybe Andy, EFR, or others can offer a better guess, but I suspect this means the loss of several hundred routes, some of which have existed for years and are some of the best in the Catalinas if not the desert southwest.

You can comment more than once, so don’t hesitate.  If you’ve commented, and another aspect of the issue comes to mind or you see something someone else has said that rings true, comment again.  Comments work.  The climbing community faced this threat — i.e., a handful of agency personnel attempting to create national policy based on their own belief that fixed anchors are prohibited “installations” under the Wilderness Act — in 1999-2000 and the outcry from individual climbers was crucial in stopping it. 

Facts matter.  If you‘ve used fixed anchors in Wilderness, repeating a route or putting one up, whether before Wilderness designation or after, say so in your comments and provide some personal examples.  Say why the fixed anchors were critical to your experience and enjoyment of the area and that the route would not be safely possible without them (but only if true in your opinion; there is no need to varnish the facts).   Except for a very few Wilderness areas, such as the Superstition Wilderness, placing fixed anchors has never been and is not currently prohibited.  (Motorized drills, though, have always been prohibited).  If you wish to verify the legal status of fixed anchors in a particular Wilderness area before explaining your experience, usually the agency website can help — but realize that almost all of the current fixed anchor restrictions were recently adopted, typically in the form of an order or (for NPS) a change to the Superintendent’s Compendium within the last several years.  (In case you‘re wondering, to my knowledge none of the current fixed anchor restrictions are based on the legal position that fixed anchors are prohibited “installations” under the Wilderness Act).

Some have argued that the threat of the proposed guidance is overblown because of agency budgetary limits and because the proposed guidance provides an authorization mechanism to place or replace fixed anchors (the so-called MRA process).  As most of my Arizona buds know, I worked for Interior for decades advising BLM and NPS and often engaging with FS (which I also worked for during three summers before law school) and I’m confident in my understanding of the bureaucracy and the consequences laid out above should the proposed guidance stand.  It is not expensive to remove fixed anchors, and if there is sufficient pressure to do so, agencies will find the money.  If the agency does not have the funding, and the fixed anchors become a safety concern or their continued use is deemed a factor in further “illegal” bolting, the agency likely will close the area to climbing until the anchors can be removed.  The MRA process will be laborious and expensive (there will be many procedural steps under NEPA, NHPA, ESA, etc.), and the process begins with the premise that fixed anchors are illegal and can only be authorized if the agency finds the fixed anchor to be “the minimum necessary for administration of the area for Wilderness Act purposes.“  That is going to be a tough sell, even if the deciding official is climber friendly.  Take note that some fixed-anchor-ban advocates argue that the Wilderness Act does not provide a “minimum” tool exception to the prohibition on “installations,” and even if it does, that a fixed anchor can never meet the “minimum necessary” standard and therefore the MRA process should not even be afforded.

The issue here is not Wilderness protection.  Most climbers I know are strong Wilderness advocates (including me).  No one is arguing that the agencies cannot or should not regulate fixed anchor use, even remove fixed anchors, to protect wilderness character.  The agencies have full authority to do so under their organic and related statutes, and in fact have relied on this authority both to prohibit and remove fixed anchors from entire crags in the past.  But for some reason, starting around 1997, seemingly every few years a handful of agency personnel seize on the prohibited “installation“ language of the Wilderness Act to try to force an agency to take a legal stand making all fixed anchors in Wilderness illegal.  This despite the fact that climbers have been placing fixed anchors (bolts, pins, slings, etc.) in numerous Wilderness areas throughout the country with agency acquiescence if not support for literally generations.  Es una locura. 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5YwbHRh0YPaGP6D4hDqgY5?si=bFipg2xQTK2AOba6IT1kvg

Thank you John. I’ve been worried sick climbers just can’t be bothered to go through the process. As you stated, these things can and should be challenged. And it’s usually our voices which sway the decision. Your words and experience are greatly appreciated, and I hope they hit home with more climbers. 

There is a key group mentioned in the linked podcast and I think everyone should check out their website. Particularly their opposition to the PARC act. These folks are writing letters and gaining influence. I sure hope we are too. Extremists always sound the same. Grubbing after other people’s rights, and demonizing their perceived enemies. You know what has nearly one hundred years of recorded history in this country? Climbing. You know what doesn’t? The wilderness act. Just saying. What we do is legitimate and appropriate. Please submit heartfelt comments on what the sport means to you and why fixed anchors are crucial to our way of life. We have five generations of shared experiences and history. This is something to be celebrated and championed. Not something to be threatened and conspired against. And don’t forget to write your representatives. Sentimentality and connection can often work its way into someone’s heart more than baseless outrage. Everybody knows outrage is all the rage. So instead, explain to them why the sport means so much to you. If it saved your life, tell them so. If it’s changed your life, tell them how. Share the love! 

In case you haven’t found time over the holidays.

https://www.accessfund.org/action-alerts/protect-wilderness-climbing-national