Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

From CRS Report for Congress 

Wilderness Laws:

 Permitted and Prohibited Uses

January 25, 2007

"Congress approved the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577; 16 U.S.C. §§1131-1136) in 1964 to establish a National Wilderness Preservation System on federal lands “where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.” As of December 31, 2006, the System totaled 694 units, with 106.6 million acres. (See CRS Report RL31447, Wilderness: Overview and Statistics, by Ross W. Gorte.) Congress has taken two basic approaches to protecting the wilderness attributes on certain federal lands while allowing some uses that might alter the pristine character of the lands. One approach, described here, is to explicitly allow uses in congressionally designated wilderness areas that do not conform with the Wilderness Act’s general management guidance; the other, not covered in this report, is to designate areas by some other label, with special management direction for those areas in the laws creating them."

The takeaway is that Congress has a long history of permitting activities that would otherwise be excluded. They include those related to grazing, water facilities, communication facilities, mineral extraction and others. 

I wrote both agencies. Please consider doing likewise. 

My gym bros in Michigan have never climbed outside of the state and even they wrote letters.

If you need help composing your letter, just ask ChatGOTE.

Wilderness Act of 1964

"(c) A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value."

I submitted comments twice. Thrice seems like overkill, but you know what they say theres no kill like overkill.

J Ewrote:

Not sure why the process would be lengthy and arbitrary. The climbing community argues about bolts all the time, and that's within the climbing community. Why would an organization considering whether bolts are compatible with the Wilderness Act be arbitrary? 

Everyone is afraid of an "MRA", but Google what it is. It's fast and easy. It's just a document to guide decision making, it isn't some big process with law suits, rule making, etc. under the proposed guidance, parks/forests can even do a single MRA for multiple projects or potentially all fixed an anchors in a park. 

The Access Fund has everyone spun up and confused because they published guidance with a bunch of trigger words that doesn't appropriately describe what's going on. I guess the Access Fund has bought some land to protect climbing, but their lobbying and advocacy is really amateur. 

The access fund and most climbers think feds should do something to manage bolts, but it seems like the Access Fund just decided to argue semantics to give climbers special access to wilderness. 

It'll be lengthy because it's not clear that the park service or forest service will devote any resources to reviewing either applications for new routes or performing the required assessments of existing routes. And even if a process is "fast and easy," it still takes staff time. If staff time isn't budgeted, then it won't happen. And under these proposals, the default is no new routes and no anchor replacement. 

And it'll be arbitrary because there aren't clear standards governing the approval process and what standards entitle a route to continue existing or a new route to be put up.

The result: making anchor replacement on existing routes unlawful, and potentially preventing new routes from going up. All of this with no clear benefit to wilderness values.

tom donnellywrote:

The wilderness Act does NOT consider each bolt to be an installation of significance.

Some of the primary backers of the Wilderness Act placed bolts in wilderness and they meant for the Wilderness Act to NOT apply to minor amounts of bolts.

It would be beneficial if you could provide any documentation relative to these two claims. The Wilderness Act of course does not specifically mention bolts so your first comment would seem to be speculative. The second comment could however bear fruit if you can document it. 

I have examined the text of U.S. Code at 16 U.S. Code Chapter 23 - NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM 

While many instances of U.S. Code do provide specific definitions, I do not believe a definition for "installation" was provided. Oftentimes one can search the Federal Register for Notices of Proposed Rulemakings and such and see public comments and learn the intention of lawmakers but in this case I have not been able to do so. Nor do the House Reports available online go into such detail. 

I submitted my comment to both agencies. 

ddriverwrote:

It would be beneficial if you could provide any documentation relative to these two claims. The Wilderness Act of course does not specifically mention bolts so your first comment would seem to be speculative. The second comment could however bear fruit if you can document it. 

Well, as one example, David Brower, who I believe was, at the time the Act was being debated and passed into law, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club and one of the principal advocates for the Wilderness Act had been a participant in the 1939 first ascent of Shiprock, N.M.--as far as is known the second climb ( after Anderson on Half Dome) in North America that utilized drilled anchors for climbing.

Edit to correct: I see that upthread someone mentioned that Brower had placed a bolt at Pinnacles prior to Shiprock. I was unaware of that and stand corrected. However, if anything, that strengthens the point that one of the principal proponents of the Wilderness Act at the time of its passage had a history of placing bolts. I'm sure that he also placed a number of fixed pitons and rappel anchors throughout his climbing career--many of them in areas he wanted to become covered under that Act.

If the government is going to be involved in fixed anchors in Wilderness, it's hard to imagine any other way it would go unless climbers got special treatment. Land Managers do tons of these MRAs every year for most everything they do in wilderness (and outside of it since many parks are basically completely managed as Wilderness, even if they aren't designated). Every administrative thing is considered using an MRA process. 

This isn't some new made up thing, it's just the way the government does business in Wilderness. 

This is why I think the Access Fund's position is so stupid. They should have just said, "we don't want the government to manage bolts!" Or else said "we have concerns about government responsiveness in this proposed process, let's put some guardrails on it"

Instead, the Access Fund asked for government involvement in fixed anchors, but only with a special carve out of the Wilderness Act that would be unique to climbing. Essentially they are acting like any number of groups who want to have their way in Wilderness, while still acting pro Wilderness and government friendly. It's just amateur politics that is more lame and hamfisted than clever and it has the negative that is going to make most of the public comments pointless or easy to dismiss. 

The difference is:

When a government employee wants to install a trail sign or something, they do an generic MRA and it is AUTOMATICALLY approved.

When a climber wants to replace a bolt, the committee (which consists mostly of people who were hired to exaggerate minor impacts) will go out of their way to find a reason to act like it's a destruction calamity, and will generally DISAPPROVE.

 ddriver wrote:  It would be beneficial if you could provide any documentation relative to these two claims. The Wilderness Act of course does not specifically mention bolts so your first comment would seem to be speculative. The second comment could however bear fruit if you can document it. 

Alan Rubin >> Well, as one example, David Brower, who I believe was, at the time the Act was being debated and passed into law, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club and one of the principal advocates for the Wilderness Act had been a participant in the 1939 first ascent of Shiprock, N.M.--as far as is known the second climb ( after Anderson on Half Dome) in North America that utilized drilled anchors for climbing.

50 years of bolting precedent makes it OBVIOUS what was the meaning of installation.  The government clearly allowed sparse bolting by never complaining.   IN fact numerous NPS employee park climbing rangers installed bolts, with the knowledge of their managers.  Therefore they did NOT consider minor bolting to be an installation as defined by the Act.   In certain impacted areas the government did make rules requiring bolting permits and that more bolts are generally not going to be  allowed.

This is a perfect example of why we need less government, and not more.

Gov’t is not the solution to your problems, gov’t is the problem! I’m sure I heard that somewhere years ago. Should have listened then. 

Don't you work for the government? 

J Ewrote:

If the government is going to be involved in fixed anchors in Wilderness, it's hard to imagine any other way it would go unless climbers got special treatment. Land Managers do tons of these MRAs every year for most everything they do in wilderness (and outside of it since many parks are basically completely managed as Wilderness, even if they aren't designated). Every administrative thing is considered using an MRA process. 

This isn't some new made up thing, it's just the way the government does business in Wilderness. 

This is why I think the Access Fund's position is so stupid. They should have just said, "we don't want the government to manage bolts!" Or else said "we have concerns about government responsiveness in this proposed process, let's put some guardrails on it"

Instead, the Access Fund asked for government involvement in fixed anchors, but only with a special carve out of the Wilderness Act that would be unique to climbing. Essentially they are acting like any number of groups who want to have their way in Wilderness, while still acting pro Wilderness and government friendly. It's just amateur politics that is more lame and hamfisted than clever and it has the negative that is going to make most of the public comments pointless or easy to dismiss. 

This is just speculation on my part, as I have no insider knowledge on why the Access Fund decided upon this approach, but it seems likely that they were aware that 'the bureaucracy' had already made the decision to 'manage bolts' ( in actuality all 'fixed' or potentially fixed climbing equipment) and that it would have been a non-starter to argue against any management. If that is the correct interpretation, then their position that such equipment should be treated similarly to a large number of other uses and activities that were 'grandfathered' into the Act ( some of them noted by ddriver upthread), was a very reasonable way to proceed. In this context therefore, the AF's position is not asking for "a special carve out...unique to climbing alone", but is instead seeking the recognition of a long-existing reality consistent with other arguably non-conforming exceptions that exist within designated Wilderness.

Alan Rubinwrote:

This is just speculation on my part, as I have no insider knowledge on why the Access Fund decided upon this approach, but it seems likely that they were aware that 'the bureaucracy' had already made the decision to 'manage bolts' ( in actuality all 'fixed' or potentially fixed climbing equipment) and that it would have been a non-starter to argue against any management. If that is the correct interpretation, then their position that such equipment should be treated similarly to a large number of other uses and activities that were 'grandfathered' into the Act ( some of them noted by ddriver upthread), was a very reasonable way to proceed. In this context therefore, the AF's position is not asking for "a special carve out...unique to climbing alone", but is instead seeking the recognition of a long-existing reality consistent with other arguably non-conforming exceptions that exist within designated Wilderness.

Nothing got grandfathered in. The Wilderness Act specifically allows prohibited things to remain if they are necessary. Everything that predated the act that was allowed to remain was done so by justifying it's necessity with an MRA. Everything added after the wilderness act was law that is "prohibited" was justified by an MRA. These policies are just the product of the land managers deciding to manage fixed anchors per the Wilderness Act's requirements, like basically every other modern man made thing in wilderness. 

The only way those land managers get told that fixed anchors aren't installations is by a court. It's hard for me to imagine the court rules that the Wilderness Act is silent on fixed anchors. They obviously have a large impact (climb any Yosemite Wall), and Wilderness Watch, or some organization like it, is going to have their lawyers parading thousands of photos of tat from El cap to the Diamond. Those photos will be persuasive, especially with the NPS and USFS on the side of The Wilderness groups since the Access Fund's argument is a challenge to the way they've been doing business for decades. 

I think if people comments focused on practical things like the following, that'd be good:

"The government doesn't propose to actually maintain or place fixed anchors, and these policies only add to the burden of volunteers who do a tremendous amount of work. The permitting process needs to be fast, open, and simple. There should be mandatory timelines, public access to decisions, and a simple permit application that allows for flexibility in the field" 

"The government should be required to advertise publicly before removing any bolts, starting why the bolts are being removed, this is necessary for safety and accountability" 

"Existing climbs should not be closed by the government due to safety concerns. The government has no objective way to evaluate the safety of fixed anchors and Wilderness climbing is inherently about constant risk assessment" 

14 pages in and I still agree that the “anything goes” approach to bolting is not sustainable for wildernesses.

Some kind of organized, objective oversight is needed. And that means not just “the climbing community” as there is too much variation in views plus difficult spots of plain and sometimes willful ignorance about wilderness. We have no further to look to find that ignorance than these forums.

I’d like to see more from the AF as to why the MRA process is not the path forward, even if that has not been applied exactly that way before. Or maybe the “Access Fund” with their current mission has reached the end of its’ time (occasional donor here).

I hope some folks commenting on these proposals who are anti-MRA are proposing other means of obtaining objective, informed oversight.

Assuming these proposals go forward, I’d like to see 

1. default acceptance / MRA approval of existing fixed anchors to the explicit exclusion of mussy hooks and like eyesores; yeah, that often probably means some kind inventory and definition of acceptable anchor material;
2. a process where it is on the land managers to reach consensus with the climbing community to identify ill-conceived or otherwise fixed anchors for permanent removal;
3. a permit process for new fixed anchors requiring land management approval where land managers think a permit process is needed;
4. and encouragement that climbing communities maintain approved fixed anchors, remove unapproved anchors - even one’s left to bail from that unexpected weather or whatever - not to excuse the bailer from arranging clean up, and conduct and document inventories.  In other words, that climbing communities generally support focused / periodic collaboration with land managers.

I just don’t think these current proposals have enough community involvement / ownership baked into them. And land managers usually don’t have the resources  to do something reasonable.  Volunteerism in collaboration is probably a sustainable path forward. No support on the part of the climbing community for a given wilderness? Land managers can move forward alone. 

Bill, I believe that you are being a little naive if you really believe in a federal agency that is timely responsive to the requests of a niche recreation group.
You live in NM, right? Let me ask you…how long has a bolting moratorium been in place in Last Chance Canyon to conduct a impact assessment? Also, how long has Crystal Cave been closed outright to complete an archeological assessment? Have either of those assessments even begun? It has literally been decades since these restrictions were put in place, and we are talking about ordinary USFS land, not Wilderness.
Federal agencies do a lot of things well, but responding to the wants of small user groups is not one of them. 

Comments submitted this morning. Took 10 minutes. Also sent example letters to all of my climbing friends to encourage them to comment.

Frank Steinwrote:

Bill, I believe that you are being a little naive if you really believe in a federal agency that is timely responsive to the requests of a niche recreation group.

Frank, I am a very patient person in these things. While I like “timely” and can complain when important actions are not “timely”, it is not primary for me in this context.

You live in NM, right? Let me ask you…how long has a bolting moratorium been in place in Last Chance Canyon to conduct a impact assessment? Also, how long has Crystal Cave been closed outright to complete an archeological assessment? Have either of those assessments even begun? It has literally been decades since these restrictions were put in place, and we are talking about ordinary USFS land, not Wilderness.

A moratorium is essentially built into the the features I outlined just as in the existing proposals. Some form of a moratorium is inevitably necessary in my opinion for reasons I stated in our prior discussions. 

Federal agencies do a lot of things well, but responding to the wants of small user groups is not one of them. 

Sure. Then some kind of moratorium is inevitable, right?

Still, with mainstream attention on climbing the way it is these days, it seems there won’t be a better time to not appear as just another small user group.  Negotiate for when and how ya take your poison. And also put community resources on the table.

I don’t share your skepticism about my asks, Frank. That’s all.

Wow Bill, you are patient. two decades of inaction in my examples. I’m not sure I even have two decades left.