Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

Bolted climbs? Just go to Europe where nearly every rock close to a road is bolted  

Alan Rubin wrote:

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'.

thanks alan, i think YOU do get it ;-)

Mark Pilate wrote:

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   

so, doesn't it strike you as absolutely bizarre that 'ice screws' would be prominently featured in the category of 'intentional and deliberate installations that are intended to be long term fixtures'?

old5ten wrote:

so, doesn't it strike you as absolutely bizarre that 'ice screws' would be prominently featured in the category of 'intentional and deliberate installations that are intended to be long term fixtures'?

No, not at all. Please stop harping on this. It doesn't say 'long term' in the proposed regulation, just stuff intentionally planned to be left behind. In the case of screws, it could mean season-long fixed rope anchors. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

Marc801 C wrote:

No, not at all. Please stop harping on this. It doesn't say 'long term' in the proposed regulation, just stuff intentionally planned to be left behind. In the case of screws, it could mean season-long fixed rope anchors. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

first, i'm referring to the actual permit (see pic earlier in the thread).  second, the reason i'm harping on ice screws specifically (and i've mentioned that before) is that it does NOT make sense for ice screws to be on the list of items requiring a permit of 'stuff intentionally to be left behind,' especially when nuts (and cams) are NOT on that list (and in reality do get left behind intentionally far more often than ice screws ever have/will)...   

all the other equipment listed on that permit, slings, etc. i can see in two, if not three different situations.  

eg, slings: 1. you use them and your second cleans them, 2. you use them and leave them behind in an emergency (need to bail), and 3. someone leaves them behind intentionally (as a fixed anchor/rap/hourglass pro, etc.).

i think we all agree that situation 1. and 2., by our interpretation, does NOT require a permit.  situation 3., by nps proposed/actual definition of installations DOES require a permit.

to reiterate, i DO NOT see why ice screws should be listed on that permit for situation 3., especially when cams and nuts are NOT!  

i'm not sure how much ice you climb, but 'season-long fixed rope anchors' (your above mentioned point for the case of situation 3.) on ice screws is pretty crazy.  ice is a continually changing medium, screws are relatively short (in comparison to snow pickets) and best placed in a slightly downward postition.  seems like you're willing to trust a fixed ice screw anchor that's been in place for a couple of months and potentially gone through multiple storm cycles, freeze/thaw cycles, etc., but imho that is a quick way to die...  

i also do not see why ice screws are NOT listed as 'removable' (which is their primary purpose) protection (nuts and cams are), yet they are listed for situation 3.  

the real gist, implication, final point to me (and others) is - whoever wrote and/or signed off on the creation of this permit within the nps system (which afik is already being used in some parks, eg jtree) had no clue (as to how ice screws are used in practice), yet (and this is the frightening part to me [and should be to all who love wilderness climbing]) they are putting forth the regulations, rules, permit system, etc. that we are supposed to abide by!

old5ten wrote:

first, i'm referring to the actual permit (see pic earlier in the thread)…..

So are you worried (by your interpretation) that if you are going into the backcountry to climb ice, that you need a “permit to carry” lol? — Ice screw style?  And that no ropes or screws are allowed to be carried without prior permit?

I’ll bet you a brand new Blue Ice 13 cm that you are totally misinterpreting

Marc801 C wrote:

Exactly what 'right' is being removed here?

The right to CLIMB, Brother!!

Keep your hands off my rock face.  

Given that the environmental impact created by fixed devices left by climbers is of key concern, has any thought been given to the impact of the bodies of climbers at the bottoms of the climbs?

Li Hu wrote:

Given that the environmental impact created by fixed devices left by climbers is of key concern, has any thought been given to the impact of the bodies of climbers at the bottoms of the climbs?

actually, i've given a lot of thought to the impact of 'non-climbers' at the bottom of climbs.  this is particularly true in places like tuolumne, but also rock creek, and to a limited extent pine creek.  the rocks are relatively close to the road and partially in wilderness.

to give you a recent example - while trying to replace some crappy old bolts on a cliff in tuolumne there were motorcycles blaring loud music in addition to a few hundred cars driving by (literally) a couple hundred feet below.  trying to pull plated studs by hand (would be soooo much easier and way more successful if one could spin them with a power drill) and drilling by hand, yet you've got motorization, noise, and visual impact - far greater than anything that's happening up on the cliff 200' away!  so yeah, i've been giving alot of thought to the absurdity of the shitshow happening below me.

most people who haven't done this kind of work (including the nps/nfs) generally have no idea of the amount of time and effort involved doing this type of work by hand, heck most climbers don't even appreciate the fact that someone put in a lot of elbow grease, time, and effort to change some crappy, rusty, and/or substandard hardware that's been in place for 20 or 30 years in order to make things better.  

think of yosemite valley - are the bolts and climbers high up on el cap 'the problem' or are the thousands of cars, the infrastructure, the pollution, etc. 'at the bottom of climbs' the problem...

Really good discussion of the history of climbing management and the spirit of the Wilderness Act here - worth a listen during holiday travels!

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

I hadn’t found time to listen to that till last night. What a breath of fresh air. Many of us are edgy veterans of the bolt wars of old. Both internal and by land management. The battle continues to this day, and I am thankful that Erik and his team are still fighting the good fight. Many of us have grown weary and cynical, true. But rights are fought for tooth and nail. To pretend otherwise is naivety at its finest and utterly ineffective. This is neither the first attack, nor will it be the last. 

What we do is legitimate and appropriate. Wilderness or not. We deserve the right to maintain the fixed hardware that gives our historically and contemporary relevant way of life a path forward considering the population growth. Anything less is unacceptable. We’ve spent decades and decades building our climbing infrastructure, and moving forward, maintaining it is the future. The value of fixed hardware is obvious and intuitive on many levels and crucial to many user groups, not just climbers. While I initially dismissed it as saber rattling, I don’t like the recent language and behavior changes by the agencies that decide policy regarding fixed anchors. I’m not even 100% on the PARC act either. We’ll see. What I am 100% on is that we need climbers to unite. A tall order, yes. Yet if we did, and if we can get younger climbers to understand the true cost of our rights, thus motivating them to champion such rights, we could guarantee a future for all climbers. 

If you love climbing in any form, take the time to offer comments on these policy changes. Take the time to write your representatives in congress. Do anything and everything you can! Debate is great, action is better. 

Holy Crap, JJ Schlick  - great post.  Just listened to the informative discussion in the link provide by Nathan P.  Very worthwhile to spend less than 2 holiday hours listening to.

The focus needs to be on what is before congress: the Protect American Climbing Act and what may be the current follow-on the Explore Act (HR 6492 - which I have not yet read).

Commenting on the FS and PS proposals is good. But what is before congress is primary.

PARC won't do anything to change the proposals available for comment from the NPS/USFS. The entire PARC thing is a waste of time. The NPS and USFS already follow all the elements of PARC, and nothing in the Wilderness bolting proposals for comment changes that. 

J E wrote:

PARC won't do anything to change the proposals available for comment from the NPS/USFS. The entire PARC thing is a waste of time. The NPS and USFS already follow all the elements of PARC, and nothing in the Wilderness bolting proposals for comment changes that. 

For us Sport Climbing newbies, how will this impact climbing? My past experiences consisted of mainly clean mountaineering and climbing within the USA.

Does this mostly affect new routes?

Will it simply be a matter of getting permission with the local authorities to replace/install bolts and anchors?

Would existing routes in question simply become more and more dangerous until people abandon them? This is what I had thought, but it looks like there are grandfathered exceptions?

Sorry for asking again, but these threads mostly consist of rants and it’s difficult for me to understand the nuances.

Li, the podcast linked on the last page is a great listen that will give the contex and answers you seek.

Li, if you haven’t already, go to the Access Fund website where you’ll find FAQ links to the proposals in question. Read them in full. They are sobering and painful. I’m actually drafting my comments and letters to my state representatives right now. 

I too am skeptical of the language and execution of the PARC act if it somehow successfully finds its way on and off the presidents desk. It seems intentionally vague. So as I said earlier, we’ll see. Read this bill in full. 

Regardless of the PARC act, I want the USFS to hear our voices reverberating through their skulls. I want our voices echoing through the halls of congress. I want it to be so deafening and overwhelming that they cannot sweep these proposals through. Given the current population of climbers may well number in the millions, now is the time to be heard, and with resounding unity and harmony in our message. Any infringement on our ability to maintain fixed hardware is dangerous and irresponsible policy. Full stop. They know it. We know it. And they know we know it. I agree with Erik’s assessment that this is a bullshit move which flies in the face of nearly sixty years of precedent, and mutually beneficial give and take. Regardless of the occasional breaches of good faith on either side over the years. 

When I was much younger my mentor instilled in me this idea of being a climber’s climber. Which is the understanding that infighting, ethical disputes, turf wars, whatever is going to happen within the sport. Inevitable human behavior. Yet, when an external access issue was recognized, and it is with these proposals, we came together to challenge it. And we brought as many people to the fight as possible. Sadly, we were often unsuccessful. Times have changed. We can now flood them with comments with just a few clicks, and have our voices heard. Let’s make it so!

If you’re new to the sport, I assure you the crags you frequent did not come easy. It will be your job to maintain these areas and routes. It will be your hands and hearts that decides their fate, and the fate of the sport’s legacy. At least that’s how it has worked up until now, and how I hope it will continue to work in the future. This sport, this pursuit of adventure, this freedom is worth fighting for. It always has been, and I hope this remains true for generations to come. Climbing for many of us is a way of life. If you climb long enough and have the right to do so, it may become a way of life for you as well. Younger or new climbers have as much skin in this game as embattled veterans. If not more so. These are your rights. Anytime the government moves to limit access to public lands, and this is what they are trying to do on several fronts, we all need to stand together no matter what user group or lands we call home. These people are public servants, not overlords. These are public lands, not private. We the people need to stand up for what is right. Otherwise no one will, and we all lose. We will lose everything. 

Li Hu wrote:

For us Sport Climbing newbies, how will this impact climbing? My past experiences consisted of mainly clean mountaineering and climbing within the USA.

Does this mostly affect new routes?

Will it simply be a matter of getting permission with the local authorities to replace/install bolts and anchors?

Would existing routes in question simply become more and more dangerous until people abandon them? This is what I had thought, but it looks like there are grandfathered exceptions?

Sorry for asking again, but these threads mostly consist of rants and it’s difficult for me to understand the nuances.

Basically, any fixed anchors activity in Wilderness will require government involvement, whether that is developing a new route or replacing/removing bolts on existing routes. The government will determine if the fixed anchors are necessary to provide for unconfined and adventurous Wilderness recreation. If the government agrees that the fixed anchors are necessary, then a permit will be issued. 

If the government doesn't agree with the fixed anchors, then no new route. If the government doesn't agree with replacing existing fixed anchors, then they won't get replaced legally. Most seem to think that if the government says no to replacing anchors, the government will likely also close the route due to liability concerns. 

This is actually how it already works on a lot of places, but some places, most notably Yosemite, don't have any direct involvement in managing fixed anchors in Wilderness. 

Also, sport climbs in Wilderness won't be allowed, so new sport routes won't get a permit and existing routes will probably eventually get chopped, although no government agency I know of has any staff with time/ability to chop bolts.

Of course, people will probably continue to place/replace anchors in Wilderness without talking about it or telling anyone about it. That will be illegal, but basically unenforceable. 

Thanks for the references. I’m listening.

JJ, well written and a most heartfelt post!

Seems like now that climbing is an Olympic sport, that the number of climbers may grow much more. Their influences and impacts on the environment will be greater.

Historically, people in the USA climbed to be in nature. Seems like there was some synergy between Environmental groups and Climbers.

Has that changed, or is there a potential for a cooperative and collaborative arrangement to ensure the future of climbing and the preservation of the wilderness for future generations?

Li Hu wrote:

Thanks for the references. I’m listening.

JJ, well written and a most heartfelt post!

Seems like now that climbing is an Olympic sport, that the number of climbers may grow much more. Their influences and impacts on the environment will be greater.

Historically, people in the USA climbed to be in nature. Seems like there was some synergy between Environmental groups and Climbers.

Has that changed, or is there a potential for a cooperative and collaborative arrangement to ensure the future of climbing and the preservation of the wilderness for future generations?

There is some of both. There have been, and continue to be, many instances of cooperation between environmental, other user groups, and climbing advocates--Bears Ears, is just one recent example. However, there are also points of conflict, especially, as in this situation , with some of the most 'hard line' elements in the environmental movement. And those 'elements' do have supporters within the bureaucracy--some who share the same 'ideology', others who have historically been hostile to climbing ( or any others whom they find it difficult to control).

Unfortunately, in the current situation, we are faced with language in the Wilderness Act that does provide 'ammunition' to those whose interests are contrary to ours, putting us very much on the defensive.

Li Hu wrote:
Historically, people in the USA climbed to be in nature. Seems like there was some synergy between Environmental groups and Climbers.
Has that changed, or is there a potential for a cooperative and collaborative arrangement to ensure the future of climbing and the preservation of the wilderness for future generations?

I’d like to see that relationship grow, to see climbing individuals and climbing groups working with environmental groups and land managers to minimize impact that, yes, could include decisions to not develop further in areas.

Another way to ask the question:   If the PARC Act passed, will MP users see these things end …

1. promotion of bonfires in the JTree bonfire thread, 
2. promotion of pure individualism in route development
3. suppression by climb veterans of overt collaboration on maintaining fixed anchors in the wilderness
4. Etc.

Passage of the PARC Act could bring a bit of a plateau in this tug-a-war. Still, I think the forces that be as represented above by many MP users will eventually bring us to more bans on fixed anchors and perhaps climbing itself in wildernesses, regardless of what climbing advocates in congress might think.

Feeling pessimistic. Hoping someone more knowledgeable can shed some positive light.