Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

The USFS has also extended their deadline to January 30.

I'd have to agree with JE and others: climbers are not special, and fighting to create a carve out for fixed anchors in wilderness is a losing battle. And it's the wrong battle to be fighting. They will clearly be interpreted as prohibited installations in WAs. That's why, as I said earlier, the AF's stance is fairly flimsy. Our comments should be advocating for a collaborative approach to developing fixed anchor management in/outside of WAs that involves the local climbing community/LCOs/AF and is managed at the Park/District (or Forest if it has to be) level. I'd also advocate for comments to recommend all existing routes in and outside of wilderness be "approved until analyses can be performed". Yes, clear definitions of what various types of routes and anchors are, but this unfortunately is not a great opportunity to shape this language. 

Andy B wrote:

The USFS has also extended their deadline to January 30.

I'd have to agree with JE and others: climbers are not special, and fighting to create a carve out for fixed anchors in wilderness is a losing battle. And it's the wrong battle to be fighting. They will clearly be interpreted as prohibited installations in WAs. That's why, as I said earlier, the AF's stance is fairly flimsy. Our comments should be advocating for a collaborative approach to developing fixed anchor management in/outside of WAs that involves the local climbing community/LCOs/AF and is managed at the Park/District (or Forest if it has to be) level. I'd also advocate for comments to recommend all existing routes in and outside of wilderness be "approved until analyses can be performed". Yes, clear definitions of what various types of routes and anchors are, but this unfortunately is not a great opportunity to shape this language. 

We've already been through this. Nobody but you two are contending that climbers are asking to be treated uniquely. I've already shown that certain wilderness user groups have received special status in legislation and it is not unusual or counterproductive or confrontational or whatever to advocate for an exemption. I do agree that arguing that bolts aren't installations is probably a losing battle as is arguing that the federal government has never classified bolts as such considering certain wilderness areas have had bolts bans in effect for decades. 

I don't really understand how the idea of stakeholders adopting a more collaborative relationship with the government is being put forward as a novel approach... that's been the standard in  wilderness areas where bolts have been banned, again for decades. The issue is this approach is laborious and makes re-bolting efforts difficult and new routing all but impossible. My understanding is the the Access Fund is concerned that the bolt bans in the forty odd wilderness areas where that policy is in effect will be applied to wilderness areas across the nation. 

I'm all for a streamlined re-bolt or route development approval process in wilderness areas but the reality is the efficiency and efficacy of such a process will be entirely dictated by the whims of local land managers. Better hope the head of your local national forest appreciates climbing! I really don't understand how people think the pragmatic approach is to have the Park Service or the Forest Service do an analysis for every route in an area, on top of processing applications for new routes, and re-bolting. How long will it take the JTree authorities to vet the what 8 thousand routes in the Park to ensure they meet the minimum requirements. 

This is why the Access Fund is advocating to be exempted. Do their arguments have merit? Maybe not, but as someone who recreates quite a bit in a bolt banned wilderness area, I totally understand why they are advocating against the policy reinterpretation as strongly as they are. 

J E wrote:

Not a national policy carve out. That was part of the act that designated that Wilderness, a concession to get it through Congress. Most individual Wilderness areas have something like that. Despite that, the USFS still justified those airstrips with an MRA (Google it). 

The policies we're arguing about don't require MRAs to place fixed anchors in emergencies, but the language for that exception is pretty silly and could use some revision. That'd be a great public comment! 

That example explains how the MRA will generally work.  When those who have big power or authority want an approval, the decision will be automatic approval.

When the land manager stacks a bolting committee with people whose only goal is protection (not recreation), the decision will be denial.

This thread is so long I haven’t taken the time to read all the comments.

One huge concern I have with a MRA is where will the funding coming from to perform a MRA? The forest service, NPS and other agencies do not have enough funds as it is. If there is no funding set aside to perform MRAs, that is a problem. 

Most of the areas and crags I climb are in what is considered wilderness and I don’t believe the NPS, FS, BLM, etc will have the resources to manage anchors in a way that works for climbers safety interests. I fully support the AF in their mission and hope that more climbers seek out better information around the proposals and how it may impact climbing.

Attached is a link to a podcast on the topic with Erik Murdock.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5YwbHRh0YPaGP6D4hDqgY5?si=OjniIkA-RR28VwGULDnHUQ

willromano wrote:

We've already been through this. Nobody but you two are contending that climbers are asking to be treated uniquely. I've already shown that certain wilderness user groups have received special status in legislation and it is not unusual or counterproductive or confrontational or whatever to advocate for an exemption. I do agree that arguing that bolts aren't installations is probably a losing battle as is arguing that the federal government has never classified bolts as such considering certain wilderness areas have had bolts bans in effect for decades. 

I don't really understand how the idea of stakeholders adopting a more collaborative relationship with the government is being put forward as a novel approach... that's been the standard in  wilderness areas where bolts have been banned, again for decades. The issue is this approach is laborious and makes re-bolting efforts difficult and new routing all but impossible. My understanding is the the Access Fund is concerned that the bolt bans in the forty odd wilderness areas where that policy is in effect will be applied to wilderness areas across the nation. 

I'm all for a streamlined re-bolt or route development approval process in wilderness areas but the reality is the efficiency and efficacy of such a process will be entirely dictated by the whims of local land managers. Better hope the head of your local national forest appreciates climbing! I really don't understand how people think the pragmatic approach is to have the Park Service or the Forest Service do an analysis for every route in an area, on top of processing applications for new routes, and re-bolting. How long will it take the JTree authorities to vet the what 8 thousand routes in the Park to ensure they meet the minimum requirements. 

This is why the Access Fund is advocating to be exempted. Do their arguments have merit? Maybe not, but as someone who recreates quite a bit in a bolt banned wilderness area, I totally understand why they are advocating against the policy reinterpretation as strongly as they are. 

You're one special status example was a law made by Congress that the USFS argues is compatible with wilderness anyway, and is local and not national. Congress has shown they aren't willing to act here, hence the PARC language that won't change anything. The NPS has in fact had policy in place for a long time that mimics the PARC Act. The NPS/USFS can't make laws the way Congress can. Separation of powers and such. So yeah, the Access Fund is asking for special treatment: exempt their activity from the Wilderness Act nationally by policy. But we probably aren't going to agree about that. 

I don't suspect that parks/forests will start some giant effort to catalog analyze each route. It will happen as some route comes to their attention because of a specific issue or permit request. Probably parks like Yosemite will do a programmatic MRA, and then just grant permits. 

It's also possible that this MRA process could approve the use of power drills to replace bolts in Wilderness in some situations, which would be awesome. It's also possible that permit applications could be relatively painless. Joshua Tree has had an ok permit system for years.  

https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-3524

Here is the link to the “Public Reading Room” with all USFS comments posted. It’s super interesting to read a random smattering of comments.

The comment count has doubled to over 2k in the past 10 days! 

A couple people here have been arguing that bolts must be defined as installations, and that we should instead be directing our comments towards the way the review process is performed. There are a couple of major issues with that. The first is that it’s not necessarily the case that bolts must be considered installations. The agencies previously released guidance that defined installations as “Anything made by humans that is not intended for human occupation and is left unattended or left behind when the installer leaves the wilderness.” The new draft proposal elaborates that there is no de minimis exception to this rule (i.e. it still applies even if the perceived size or impact is negligible).

The problem is that this definition does not occur within the wilderness act; it was created by the NPS and BLM in their effort to interpret the law. The wilderness act provides no definition for the term installation. The interpretation that bolts are an installation is just that: an interpretation. There is no clear legal mandate that fixed anchors must be considered an installation. It’s not required by the letter of the law, and it’s probably not consistent with the spirit of the law. 

The second major issue is that if fixed anchors are treated as installations, they must be reviewed by the MRA process. This process is standardized and stringent. To argue that “bolts are installations, we should be trying to give input on how the MRA is performed” strikes me as naive. We have no input on how the MRA review is conducted. The MRA would be done in the same way it is done for every other installation in the wilderness. Any argument that the MRA should be done differently for climbing anchors or should follow some predefined guidelines outside of the traditional MRA process is actually asking for a special exception or carve-out, something that these same commenters seem to oppose. The MRA reviews would only be completed “as resources allow”. This means that if the agencies don’t have time or money to process your request for a new route or anchor replacement, it can wait in limbo indefinitely. In areas without the resources to review these in a timely manner (probably most), this would represent a de facto ban on new routes and anchor replacement.

It’s also important to remember that this isn’t just about bolts. The rules would apply to any form of anchor that is left behind. The only routes that would not require review are those that are protected entirely with removeable protection and have an easy walk-off. If you can’t walk to the top of the rock/mountain, you can’t climb it without an MRA review. It would also effectively ban the onsight first ascent, since you would have to provide a detailed description of the proposed route in the application process and what anchors would be needed (of course, this usually wouldn’t even be possible without climbing the route, which presents a catch-22 that also goes unaddressed).

There is a reason all of the major climbing organizations (not just the Access Fund) have focused on the argument that fixed anchors are installations, and it’s because the consequences of that interpretation would be unavoidable and catastrophic for wilderness climbing. The agencies should absolutely still have the ability to make rules and guidelines that regulate climbing anchors, but it will be bad for us AND bad for them if those rules and guidelines are constrained and implemented by the MRA process. If that part of the proposals is removed, the rest actually looks like a fairly reasonable starting point.

Collin, deciding if bolts are installations conclusively is truly a matter for the courts. I'm sure the agency solicitors (lawyers) have told the agencies that they think the courts would rule that fixed anchors are installations for the purposes of the Wilderness Act. Access Fund lawyers have said otherwise, I'm sure. It'd be really easy for climbers if the Access Fund lawyers are right, but I'm betting on the gov solicitors. It's hard for me to believe that the Wilderness Act would be silent on fixed anchors completely. Look at El Cap, those fixed anchors have a profound effect on the perception of Wilderness there. 

You're assuming a lot about how the MRA process would work. These policies leave open the option of programmatic MRAs for fixed anchors, which would mean that the MRA wouldn't authorize fixed anchors individually. In that setting, you could imagine a permit for an FA that would be flexible in terms of fixed anchors. That isn't a carve out, that's how MRAs work. There is no requirement that each individual fixed anchor be specifically described by an MRA. 

Lots of doom and gloom about a short MRA document that could be done once for thousands of bolts. Again, the agencies do thousands and thousands of these MRAs per year. 

JE, would you care to identify yourself? You joined the forum a month ago, you have no ticks, and you have posted extensively on this subject and only on this subject. 

If you don't want to put your name out there, I'm still curious: Where are you based? Are you a climber? Do you climb in wilderness? if so, where? Have you done first ascents? Have you placed bolts or fixed anchors in wilderness? I and probably others would like to know about little bit more about your perspective here.

For me, I climb extensively in the Sierra, where much of what I do and want to do is in Wilderness.* On Day 1 of these policies going into effect, bolt maintenance and sling replacement becomes illegal without a permit or in an "emergency," so the clock starts ticking. Slings degrade in the California sun very quickly. Bolts rust. Pins loosen. These policies will have a direct and immediate effect on my safety and my climbing goals. 

I don't know if that's the same case for you or not.

You're assuming a lot about how the MRA process would work. These policies leave open the option of programmatic MRAs for fixed anchors, which would mean that the MRA wouldn't authorize fixed anchors individually. In that setting, you could imagine a permit for an FA that would be flexible in terms of fixed anchors. That isn't a carve out, that's how MRAs work. There is no requirement that each individual fixed anchor be specifically described by an MRA.

It's not an assumption when one reads the NPS document. You're right that it does open the option for a programmatic MRA, but it contains little direction as to what a programmatic MRA could cover. On the other hand, the procedures for new route applications and bolt/anchor replacement clearly envision that each park unit is supposed to be doing a bolt-by-bolt analysis for each application. Even leaving aside whether non-climber park staff is qualified to make these choices, the sheer labor required (which is unfunded) has a significant potential to grind bolt replacement and new-routing to a near halt. This will have consequences for not only the fun of climbing new routes, but for human safety. I think that you are being willfully blind to the real potential for park and forest administrators to essentially shut down climbing simply by refusing or failing to set up application procedures or act on applications.

I do think that a programmatic MRA process could allow for a significantly more streamlined process, but the policy needs to be significantly overhauled to make clear what a programmatic MRA can do. This will be in my comments.

*Also worth noting that the Forest Service proposal potentially bans new crags even in non-wilderness areas. This is a GIGANTIC problem that hasn't gotten enough attention here.

Collin H wrote:

[...]The agencies previously released guidance that defined installations as “Anything made by humans that is not intended for human occupation and is left unattended or left behind when the installer leaves the wilderness.” The new draft proposal elaborates that there is no de minimis exception to this rule (i.e. it still applies even if the perceived size or impact is negligible).

[...]

There's definitely an implicit minimum level of impact policy makers have in mind, for example I seriously doubt that USFS/NPS would consider all of the microplastics our fancy outdoor gear constantly sheds to be an "installation" despite it technically fitting this definition. My cynical take is that policy makers tend to make policies vague/implicit when they don't know what they want to accomplish and/or at some point in the future they want to exercise more power than was understood/implied in the original policy. Neither is good policy making and it shouldn't be acceptable from the public's perspective. So, USFS/NPS really should be pushed to make minimum impact requirements explicit in their policy (and maybe bolts will fit under that definition), but as is the policy is far too open to interpretation and, by extension, abuse.

I have the potential for distant professional involvement in this. I'm just posting because I think there is misinformation on all sides of this issue. I've mostly climbed in CA including a bunch of Sierra routes, Yosemite walls, a few obscure FAs, and most of the popular cragging in the state. Also standard other things in the Western US. I've placed bolts on an FA in wilderness by hand, cut and replaced plenty of Tat, epically bailed, etc. 

I think the ideal setup under this policy would be each park making a climbing plan, that includes a programmatic MRA that says fixed anchors are allowed in Wilderness under certain parameters (not sport routes, hand drilled, camouflaged hangers, stainless, etc). One for one replacement is allowed with minimal review and no additional MRA (like getting a permit to backpack), new routes maybe get a more thorough analysis but again, not an individual MRA. 

There is no reason a system like that couldn't happen under this policy, and we should be advocating for something like that. 

Even if the Access Fund "wins" this argument about installations, there is no reason the agencies couldn't manage fixed anchors in practically the exact same way they propose through other legal means. 

I agree that the forest service policy is a bunch more problematic than the NPS one, the non Wilderness stuff seems especially bad. 

I think it's good if we get more comments trying to pin down the permitting process under these policies to hold parks/forests to the fire to make decisions quickly and be accountable for them. I agree that bad government, whether it is bias against climbing, or whatever else could ruin this process through inaction on permits, or other means. It's a big threat to climbing, no doubt. 

Bureaucrats in the USFS/NPS in the current generation seem to think they are being good employees if they blindly choose more protection for Wilderness whenever possible, which isn't good government and isn't demanded by the Wilderness Act. Their choices can often be counterproductive for the environment too. 

Nathan P wrote:

https://cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/ReadingRoom?project=ORMS-3524

Here is the link to the “Public Reading Room” with all USFS comments posted. It’s super interesting to read a random smattering of comments.

The comment count has doubled to over 2k in the past 10 days! 

Thanks for posting this link. Interesting for sure. And kind of alarming - I clicked on 4 or 5, and 2 of them were advocating for the proposal and staunchly against fixed anchors! Hopefully, my sampling isn't representative of the rest of the comments. 

Edit - saw this in another one that is against fixed anchors - "Another safety concern is that many climbers smoke marijuana..." the context was about wildfires, which I guess is a fair point, but made me lol at first. 

Another one I found, "The use of permanent anchors for climbing in the wilderness areas is a bad idea. Regardless of the ideas for regulating it, the whole idea is fraught with problems. If a mountain is attractive to climbers, they will climb it. If it is dangerous, that is part of the challenge. Just say "NO" to this bad idea.". 

Actually even seeing well-written comments in favor of the proposal by people who say they are climbers. Too bad.

I reviewed several of those comments as well- most of them were virtual cut & pastes from the Access Fund's talking points- while not very original, it will probably still serve the purpose.

One of the comments was laughably silly:

"I like climbing. Please don't do this!"

And that's all they wrote...

J E wrote:I think the ideal setup under this policy would be each park making a climbing plan, that includes a programmatic MRA that says fixed anchors are allowed in Wilderness under certain parameters (not sport routes, hand drilled, camouflaged hangers, stainless, etc). One for one replacement is allowed with minimal review and no additional MRA (like getting a permit to backpack), new routes maybe get a more thorough analysis but again, not an individual MRA. 

I was kinda thinking this would be more along the lines of what would actually happen too. There is no real chance any government agency has the time, resources or money, let alone technical ability to analyze existing bolts. And they certainly won’t have the proper experience to make any educated judgments about new installations. If they even tried, it definitely wouldn’t be a timely process. Using local LCO’s would only work in a perfect make believe world as they tend to delve into something reminiscent of a “good ol boys club” when given any power. Not that any of this would be enforceable in any meaningful way. People will (maybe to a lesser degree) just go around putting in new bolts on the down low anyway.

We should be pushing for bolts to be considered “necessary safety equipment” to be utilized only under certain parameters (ie. hand drilled, stainless, environmental impact reduction [slings on trees/visual] and especially replacement purposes etc…) and not an individualized permitting process which will never work. Of course, we can’t expect we’ll be able to just go around bolting the shit out of whatever we want anymore either. The end of those days has been coming for a long time. We did that to ourselves.

J E wrote:

You're one special status example was a law made by Congress that the USFS argues is compatible with wilderness anyway, and is local and not national. Congress has shown they aren't willing to act here, hence the PARC language that won't change anything. The NPS has in fact had policy in place for a long time that mimics the PARC Act. The NPS/USFS can't make laws the way Congress can. Separation of powers and such. So yeah, the Access Fund is asking for special treatment: exempt their activity from the Wilderness Act nationally by policy. But we probably aren't going to agree about that. 

I don't suspect that parks/forests will start some giant effort to catalog analyze each route. It will happen as some route comes to their attention because of a specific issue or permit request. Probably parks like Yosemite will do a programmatic MRA, and then just grant permits. 

It's also possible that this MRA process could approve the use of power drills to replace bolts in Wilderness in some situations, which would be awesome. It's also possible that permit applications could be relatively painless. Joshua Tree has had an ok permit system for years.  

My god man. I've given numerous examples of the forest service trying to close airstrips due to MRAs and their interpretation of the wilderness act as prohibiting air strips. The only reason they cannot shut down backcountry flying in the Frank Church is because of legislation, specifically the CIWA. This point really doesn't matter vis a vis the access fund and bolting other than the fact that I was countering your initial claim that climbers are the only user groups that advocate for and occasionally receive carveouts. I am fully aware that without congress explicitly legalizing bolting or classifying bolts as non-installations (or the courts, the FS, or the NPS deciding that), little can be done to exempt bolting from wilderness act oversight. Which is why I understand the Access Fund's approach to this issue i.e. trying to skirt the issue entirely by arguing bolts aren't installations, an approach that you obviously don't agree with. It's clear that you favor a more bureacratic approach to bolting in the wilderness. You should just say that instead of denigrating the Access Fund...

JE, I think there is more common ground than there initially appeared to be here, and we desire very similar outcomes. I took issue with some of your earlier posts because I felt they would induce confusion and fatalism in climbers when we need to be involved and organized to ensure the outcome of this process is fair and reasonable. I also thought it was unfair to imply that the Access Fund and its supporters were arguing in bad faith. I think we agree that there is enough legal uncertainty and ambiguity here to accommodate different interpretations of what constitutes an "installation", and it's not totally unreasonable to disagree with the interpretation currently being used in the proposal, even if there is disagreement on whether that is the most effective strategy. You have also raised some reasonable and useful points that provide necessary context and can strengthen our arguments by making them more informed and well-considered.

We're all open to effective oversight and regulation to prevent excess impact to the wilderness, we just want that to occur in a way that doesn't restrict access more than is necessary to do so. Whether this happens by guidelines laid out in a climbing management plan or a programmatic MRA is less important than avoiding a lengthy review process for each and every route/anchor. I suspect there might be a bit more flexibility with guidelines in a climbing management plan rather than a programmatic MRA, but I have no background in law or land management, so I may be wrong. Regardless, the programmatic MRA in the current proposals would be done in addition to the review of each individual route, not in place of it. I think we agree that this isn't a good thing. 

If we want to attain our shared goals, it's important that we emphasize the broad agreement within the community rather than heightening divisions. We can submit comments that take different approaches to obtaining an acceptable outcome, and that will strengthen us. We can share ideas for different approaches here, but we should refrain from overshadowing the broad consensus that the current proposal is a major threat to access. I suggest we try to keep arguments constructive, assume everyone is operating in good faith and on good intentions, and not detract from the important stuff with pages and pages of repetitive disagreements over minutiae (lets put the airstrip thing to rest, or start a new thread where we can go off the rails and debate these things endlessly).

To all those who have not yet commented and are still considering it, there are some very helpful guidelines out there that discuss how make your comment more effective. Some of the tips are non-obvious and quite helpful. I'd strongly recommend skimming them at the very least.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/ES_20180809_RegComments.pdf

https://www.cogr.edu/sites/default/files/Tips_For_Submitting_Effective_Comments.pdf

Some notable excerpts:

"The comment process is not a vote – one well supported comment is often more influential than a thousand form letters".

"Consider the problem that the regulation intends to address."

"Consider whether the costs of the intended regulation are justified by its benefits... Regulations should only be issued if the costs of the intended regulation are justified by its benefits. Are they?"

"Consider whether regulations have been designed in a cost-effective manner... Can the agency achieve the same outcomes at lower cost or while imposing a lower burden on society (in terms of time or effort)?"

"By law, agencies must review all public comments received and, while they can categorize similar comments (e.g. identical chain/form letters), they are required to respond to all comments in the preamble of their final regulation whether they accept the suggestion or not. Agencies have to explain the rationale for not incorporating a comment (e.g. out of scope, no statutory authority) or, for those comments they find persuasive, they have to explain why they have decided to incorporate the suggestion. Regulations that are arbitrary or capricious—for instance, which ignore evidence and research contravening their purported effects and benefits—can be challenged in court. Therefore, your comments can have a real impact: they must be read and may even lead to changes in regulations."

I have asked my climbing gym to hang the following flyer at the gym to spread awareness.  I encourage anyone who climbs at a gym to hang this flyer.  Note I am not a marketing person so it is pretty bare bones, feel free to improve upon it as you see fit.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UexHJ6j9SRkXnHEow8XMy5n95mC0DEN3/view?usp=sharing 

Yeah Collin, I don't think the Access Fund is operating in bad faith. Judging from the comments, most people aren't going to bother to learn the particulars of how federal bureaucracies work, so it makes sense that they'd fixate on "prohibited" even though they know every Wilderness areas is full of "prohibited" things and more get installed every day. It's a simple approach that is common sense and easy to get pissed about in the climbing gym (which is good).

I feel like their approach does damage to relationships with land managers though. For a bunch of reasons mentioned already, and I don't think they played politics in a particularly effective way, the language in PARC got neutered because otherwise a bunch of environmentally minded congress people were going to be on record weakening the Wilderness Act. 

On the plus side, they did manage some wins, like getting attention of various Congress people, getting a bunch of people commenting, and hopefully that results in a final policy that is better. Maybe something like salamanizer and I were talking about, where permits are easy and rarely rejected. 

We know that Joshua Tree rejected a bolt replacement request on "I Can't Believe It's a Girdle", and we know that the NPS side of this policy really started with the Joshua Tree Climbing Plan which hasn't yet been implemented (probably because of the Access Fund trying to fight problems with it). 

There is definitely a battle to be fought. Does anyone want to go fail a bolt and get injured on "I Can't Believe It's a Girdle"? I bet the Access Fund will find you a good lawyer. 

It's great to see all of the interest in these proposals! If you'd like to learn more, join Access Fund, the American Alpine Club, and professional climber Nina Williams this evening at 5pm MT for a policy-focused webinar. We'll break down our analysis of these proposals and answer questions from the community. Registration is free, but you do have to sign up to join: https://www.accessfund.org/events-calendar/stop-the-bolt-prohibition-webinar 

J E wrote:

We know that Joshua Tree rejected a bolt replacement request on "I Can't Believe It's a Girdle", and we know that the NPS side of this policy really started with the Joshua Tree Climbing Plan which hasn't yet been implemented (probably because of the Access Fund trying to fight problems with it).

By the way, 7+ weeks ago, I sent JTNP (jotr_permit_office@nps.gov) a message asking about ICBIAG and Bernadette’s MP comment that JTNP denied the request to replace the bolts.

I thought the questions I asked were pretty benign and would be easy to answer:  “Can you confirm the post represents JTNP’s decision about replacing the route’s bolts? Is there a JTNP POC or office that someone could contact to hear more of the reasoning behind that decision for this particular route / area?  Perhaps there is a document about the area that could be shared. Or should I contact MP user Bernadette Regan for that?”

I included my real name.  They have not replied.

Edit: There was more to the message than the above.   But I believe all of it would come across as respectful to the majority of park officials and employees.

On the other hand, I have seen wilderness land managers work with Climbing communities towards a positive outcome for a power drilling incident. Initial reluctance to collaborate were rejected by the involved climbing organization (lawyers, bah!). Other climbing organizations got involved which effectively brought the first back in plus guides, developers, etc.  A bolting ban was averted.  A Guideline about bolting in the wilderness was signed by community reps. AF supported behind the scenes but I think mostly about legal possibilities (again - lawyers, bah!).

Collaboration can happen.

What made that collaboration possible? I suspect it was side discussions and coordination between leaders and managers in organized climbing groups, guides, and, yes, the USFS. And of course climbers showing up at the public meetings.