Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Fixed Anchors & Wilderness
|
Just to add to and emphasize some of JJs excellent comments: Personal stories and documentable facts help Keep it short (somebody has to read all this stuff) BS, hyperbole, digression, and rambling do not help but instead may have the opposite effect. (Disclosure: I’ve been on the receiving end of thousands of public comments, but am writing this post as a private citizen) |
|
Here is what I would like to do—please help me think about it. Is this viable? Am I jumping the gun? Sooner or later there is going to be litigation. I would like to get out ahead of it. I defended one of these cases in U.S. District Court, Tucson back in 2005. I went to trial and won—but looking back----I think I could have won pre-trial. I would like to identify climbers who are lawyers. Lawyers who have an interest in defending climbers for free. I am not talking about fee generating cases. The average climber is not going to have much money. The average lawyer is not going to know anything about climbing. Climbers’ guilty pleas (especially without representation) will set bad precedents. Prosecutors’ threats of more severe punishment may intimidate guilty pleas. I would like to identify lawyer/climbers from every major climbing destination who might have some interest. I am not asking for anyone to do any work at this point. Lord knows most of us have too much already. I am just asking to begin a discussion to see what might be possible. I am aware that there is an amazing amount of talent and expertise out there. To my knowledge, apart from the Access Fund, it is all uncoordinated. I fear if we wait, if we do nothing, then we won’t be prepared. It is alarming to see the present apathy---as to just submitting comments to the agencies. Perhaps we can have a forum topic on Mountain Project where very generic information is shared, for example: Who might be willing to help. Who could be an expert witness for an area—a guidebook author for example. What developments are occurring across the U.S. I think it absolutely essential that ticketed climbers immediately know where they can go (at very least) to ask some basic legal questions from other climbers before going to Court. Can we get a conversation off the ground? Suggestions? Ideas? Thanks! Scott Mc |
|
Avoid Donating to any of these organizations- Alliance for the Wild Rockies • Animals Are Sentient Beings • Bitterroot Audubon • Blue Ridge Land Conservancy • Bozeman Broadband, Great Old Broads for Wilderness • California Chaparral Institute • Californians for Western Wilderness • Center for Biological Diversity • Central Virginia Land Conservancy • Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks • Conservation Congress • Doug Scott Wilderness Consulting • Eagle Summit Wilderness Alliance • Eco Advocates NW • Eco Integrity Alliance • Footloose Montana • Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges • Friends of the Bitterroot • Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness • Friends of the Clearwater • Friends of the Wild Swan • Gallatin Wildlife Association • Heartwood • Izaak Walton League of America, Minnesota Division • Izaak Walton League of America, Wes Libbey Northern Lakes Chapter • Living Rivers and Colorado Riverkeeper • North Cascades Conservation Council • Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness • Olympic Park Advocates • Protect Our Woods • Quiet Use Coalition • Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) • Rewilding Institute • Rio Grande Valley Broadband, Great Old Broads for Wilderness • River Runners for Wilderness • Soda Mountain Wilderness Council • Southern Virginia Land Conservancy • Standing Trees • Swan View Coalition • WildEarth Guardians • Wilderness Watch Additionally, exemptions are granted to the wilderness act based on use prior to designation, realistically if someone's in holding had a tractor in 1956 before designation so therefore they can use dirtbikes in the wilderness, pitons that USGS surveys used should grandfather in bolts in any wilderness in the US. I'm not saying go perma draw and grid bolt the Wind River Range, but the use of bolts for safety and "for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness"; would stand in a court of law. As for the argument in "the will leave them unimpaired for future use", the only way to do that would be in violation of the first half of that sentence "for the use of and enjoyment of the American People"; as humans, no matter how leave no trace you are, have an inherent impact. Additionally, we still let horse in the wilderness and they have a much more destructive footprint than a well camouflaged bolt. Edit: Scott, I just read your last comment about litigation, and I strongly agree with getting ahead of it. It makes sense to stop this before the proposal has any chance of becoming policy. |
|
In Sequoia NF they started limiting group size to 6. This ended a lot of educational trips for new backpackers/climbers. Those 6 people however were allowed a horse and two pack animals each. |
Dylan Easterlingwrote: It's unfortunate that this issue is another spear dividing the conservation community and another point that will divest the climbing community from it. Conservationists need all the help they can get in today's world, and losing a huge chunk of the recreational community's buy-in will only hurt their efforts. I'm curious, Dylan, where did you curate this list from? |
|
Wilderness Watch posted a letter opposing Protect America's Rock Climbing Act, signed by these organizations. I am all for conservation and true conservation organizations, but often too many of these organizations are in reality preservationists. IMO the rancher or logging company that works the land sustainably, and allows access is better than a lot of these land trusts that buy land as an NGO and allow no access while paying no property taxes. There are the good one like the TNC, that work to restore the land and fire regime, and allow access but they are the minority. |
|
Scott, I too hope we won’t be rounded up and sent to re-education camps but we live in uncertain times. If you and others wanted to collaborate and put something like a FAQ together, I think this kind of information could prove useful. Even if it’s never used. as you stated, there is a ton of hidden talent and expertise folded into our community. Flex it! |
|
I don't want to fight the wild land preservationist organizations. I agree with almost everything they stand for except prohibiting climbing (and similar activity) access. It would be better to support them while convincing them that climbing can be completely consistent with all of their objectives and ideals for preserving the land, its ecosystems and their preferred experience of walking quietly in those spaces. We (meaning the climbing community) can't do that while simultaneously turning so many crags into outdoor gyms with fixed draws, loud music and the crowds. Climbing can be quiet and even great sport crags can be made much less visible, although less convenient, by cutting back on the fixed draws, saying no to fully bolted routes under 5.11, not bolting anywhere that a natural placement is possible and so forth. |
|
So I notice there is confusion about what these new regulations might (legally) mean if they go into effect. Here is my very simplified take: Can you leave a fixed anchor in an area that is designated wilderness? No, you cannot leave anything behind (bolt, pin, sling, nut, thread). Can you apply for permission to place a fixed anchor in an area that is designated wilderness? Yes, but a Minimum Requirements Analysis must be performed first. What is a Minimum Requirements Analysis (MRA)? A MRA is a statutory obligation derived from Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act of 1964. This section of the Act specifically prohibits uses, except “as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act.” Here is the Forest Service's nineteen (19) page description of what an MRA entails. https://winapps.umt.edu/winapps/media2/wilderness/NWPS/documents/MRDG/MRA_FAQ.pdf Will pre-existing routes in wilderness be grand fathered? No, all routes in designated wilderness will become illegal until the agency completes a MRA and decides that the route meets the minimum requirements for the administration of the area. Will you be able to replace dangerous or aging fixed anchors in wilderness? No, not unless a MRA has been done first. WHAT THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY MEAN ON THE GROUND----FOR ALL OF US IN ARIZONA----IS ANYONE'S GUESS |
|
Here's a simple, practical question... How do I know I'm in wilderness ? Let's say I park at Windy Point and start walking west. At some point I will enter wilderness. Mean Mistreater ? Faded Rock ? Obscure Rock ? Where ? |
|
Jbak- according to caltopo overlay, it looks like Rich and Dave route is the dividing line of wilderness, so just a few routes are in wilderness. Also looks like munchinland, rap, fortress and ravens, most of willow canyon crags, prison camp, middle earth, hairpin are all in the wilderness area. Plus lots of the smaller crags between summerhaven and rose cyn. |
|
Matt, I guess my question wasn't quite that simple... :) I pretty much know which crags are completely in wilderness. (see my post on page one of this thread). My question really deals with boundaries. Let's say I want to replace the bolt on Dave and Rich. Legal or illegal ? As I walk west along the mistreater wall, do I encounter a sign ?... A fence ?... What? (To let me know I've entered wilderness.) The FS DOES use fences. As you hike to the main wall of milagrosa, you cross a wire fence marking the forest boundary. I think it's knocked down but the wire is there. I'll have to check out caltopo. My info regarding the wilderness boundary is not very fine-grained. |
|
The Windy Ridge situation points up the sweep and absurdity of the FS’ proposed guidance. Assuming Matt’s eyeballing of the Wilderness boundary is correct, based on SQL III and personal knowledge, I count 56 routes within the boundary just out the ridge. About 40 of these have one or more bolts, and a good dozen are sport routes. The guidance goes into effect and, viola, the bolts (and any pins) on those 40 routes are illegal and can’t be replaced until the Forest Supervisor (not the District Ranger) does an MRA and finds — after NEPA (my bet is an EA), an inventory for cultural resources (and maybe tribal consultation), and other requirements — that they are the ”necessary to meet the minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of the [Wilderness] Act” (language from the Act). If the Forest Supervisor finds this standard is not met for a bolted route, it either sits there as the bolts continue to age and become increasingly dangerous, the FS pays someone to chop them, or — because of the safety issues — the FS closes the route (and maybe the crag) to climbing until the FS has the money to pay for removal. Because the agencies have deemed “bolt intensive“ routes as incompatible with the Wilderness Act, the FS is almost certainly to conclude the sport routes have to go and probably some of the mixed gear climbs too. And that’s just for little ole Windy Ridge. Look at JB’s list of crags. To get back to Windy Ridge for a sec, a number of those anchors out the ridge had been drilled when FS did its wilderness inventory and concluded the area was Wilderness worthy and made its recommendation to Congress for designation. Yeah, there was no guidebook then, but the only real trail out the ridge went under the faces of Mean Mistreater and Faded Rock, which both had bolts as early as 1976 (earlier for Mean Mistreater). Maybe the inventory crew didn’t get out there, and they just eyeballed it from Windy Point, but still… Indulge me one further float on the parade of horribles with which I started this post. After the guidance goes final and the bolts become instantly illegal, me, as a pissed off trad climber, seizes the situation and I go chop all the sport routes, and maybe some of the ”over bolted” trad routes to show my manliness. Or maybe I’m just a young misguided wilderness purist that can’t stand that climbers have been getting away with this stuff for so long, and I try to chop every bolt I can figure out how to get to (but probably fail and just pound down the hangers). Unlikely, but — ahem — still… |
|
I gotcha... I'm still amazed at the amount of (presumably) bosched routes in designated wilderness I'm thinking of the 100 foot restrictions on camping near bodies of water: there aren't fences or markings(except in very busy areas, perhaps). Interesting question on the government's responsibility (or lack of) to physically mark the wilderness boundary, or if maps are considered 'warning' enough. |
MattBwrote: Why? |
|
Remember John, Windy Ridge goes all the way north to lizard rock. |
Scott M. McNamarawrote: Not sure about that. From Forest Service Manual 2300 – Recreation, Wilderness, and Related Resource Management, 2355.32 – Placement, Replacement, and Retention of Fixed Anchors and Fixed Equipment in Congressionally Designated Wilderness, 5. "Existing fixed anchors and fixed equipment in wilderness may be retained pending completion of a Minimum Requirements Analysis, as funding and resources allow, that determines they are the minimum necessary to facilitate primitive or unconfined recreation or otherwise preserve wilderness character." I would interpret "may be retained" to mean that USFS will not act until they can perform an analysis. This should be a point of emphasis in comments to USFS. They should not be unilaterally authorized to prohibit use of fixed hardware lacking said analysis. A related case is BLM banning climbing routes just outside the boundaries of Castle Rock in Idaho because cultural resource inventories had not been completed. Both situations potentially involve using the excuse of limited resources to prohibit an activity. |
|
I sure hope you are correct--- that "may be retained" means that the agencies will get around to reviewing them someday. Maybe some will stay, maybe some will go---maybe sometime in the distant future. But I do not think it means they will get grandfathered. However, another interpretation of that phrase (that is not as charitable to climbers) is the NFS doesn't need to get rid of these anchors immediately, despite the fact they become immediately illegal--if a "fixed anchor" is determined to be an "installation." I suspect that the NGOs pushing the "installation" interpretation want all fixed anchors out of wilderness yesterday. My second question is---does "may be retained" mean climbing will be allowed on them. Here is the cite to The Federal Register where this language occurs: |
Scott M. McNamarawrote: We are looking at the same document. |
