Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

J E wrote:

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).

J E, you are totally off base for several reasons. 

First, bolts do NOT fit the definition of installations according to the language in the Wilderness Act.  To understand the spirit of the language used, the context is important.  The text:

     "Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area"

Its clear that pretending a 1/2" bolt is an installation is a stretch.  The idea that anything left behind is an installation is simply an interpretation of the act, as others have pointed out.  Why WOULDN'T the Access Fund take issue with this interpretation?  Further, look at the very definition of Wilderness spelled out in the act:

     "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."

Again, pretty clear that bolts are compatible with wilderness character.  Now fully bolted, multi-route sport crags?  Thats a different thing than a rap station atop an alpine peak and the NPS has addressed this difference in a skillful way in Director's Order 41, which says that "bolt intensive face climbs are incompatible with wilderness character".

Second, you're obviously a line officer level federal land manager because you believe the government will find the ideal way to implement the management of a prohibited use of wilderness that suites the climbing community.  Give me a break!  Trusting any park or NF to use the MRA process to protect climbing is a pipe dream.  I doubt you actually understand the purpose of an MRA - which is to grant an otherwise prohibited use of wilderness because it's the minimum requirement for the AREA to preserve wilderness character.  Now tell me, what climbing route in any wilderness, anywhere, is a required part of that Wilderness area's character?  Turns out there are none.  Newsflash - climbing can be counter to wilderness character and pretending like the land managers are going to preserve a recreation opportunity in the name of Wilderness is laughable.

If you so strongly disagree with the Access Fund's stance, you can reflect that in your own public comment.  

For folks making a stand on definitions like “installation”, I sympathize. Still, while common definitions help with common sense, the courts decide whether other meanings or circumstances also apply.

An example regards the history surrounding a constitutional amendment about federal regulation of interstate commerce (10th?).  My below “WTFs” have to do with definitions / applications and not about worthiness of the case. Each went to the US Supreme Court who ruled at the time in uncommon ways in all but the first.

• One of the first common sense applications was the replacement of state administered monetary notes to US-wide (i.e., common US coins, dollars, etc.). Seems common sense app.
• It was applied to whether an acre of a crop federally quota’d should be counted towards the quota if it was fed to the farmers livestock (i.e., never went on “the market”). WTF?
• It was applied to some ferry crossing conflict where the river was a state boundary; ok, maybe we’re back to common sense? Can’t recall details
• It was applied to whether a private restaurant or auto shop could discriminate based on race for folks driving from another state. WTF?

Continuing to focus on this definition of “installation” is not going to influence the current debate anymore than the definition of interstate commerce in the above cases in my non-lawyerly opinion. It is the domain of the courts.

And the courts will be considering the broader scope of why should we consider this definition? And that is where our focus should be in my opinion: why? What is driving a need to consider bolts as installations? 

Derek B wrote:

J E, you are totally off base for several reasons. 

First, bolts do NOT fit the definition of installations according to the language in the Wilderness Act.  To understand the spirit of the language used, the context is important.  The text:

     "Except as specifically provided for in this Act, and subject to existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area"

Its clear that pretending a 1/2" bolt is an installation is a stretch.  The idea that anything left behind is an installation is simply an interpretation of the act, as others have pointed out.  Why WOULDN'T the Access Fund take issue with this interpretation?  Further, look at the very definition of Wilderness spelled out in the act:

     "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."

Again, pretty clear that bolts are compatible with wilderness character.  Now fully bolted, multi-route sport crags?  Thats a different thing than a rap station atop an alpine peak and the NPS has addressed this difference in a skillful way in Director's Order 41, which says that "bolt intensive face climbs are incompatible with wilderness character".

Second, you're obviously a line officer level federal land manager because you believe the government will find the ideal way to implement the management of a prohibited use of wilderness that suites the climbing community.  Give me a break!  Trusting any park or NF to use the MRA process to protect climbing is a pipe dream.  I doubt you actually understand the purpose of an MRA - which is to grant an otherwise prohibited use of wilderness because it's the minimum requirement for the AREA to preserve wilderness character.  Now tell me, what climbing route in any wilderness, anywhere, is a required part of that Wilderness area's character?  Turns out there are none.  Newsflash - climbing can be counter to wilderness character and pretending like the land managers are going to preserve a recreation opportunity in the name of Wilderness is laughable.

If you so strongly disagree with the Access Fund's stance, you can reflect that in your own public comment.  

Whoa there bro. Just because I care how government effects me doesn't mean I believe it's right or work for them. I find most of what is going on here too be silly, and a silly side effect of government, and silly side effects of the wilderness act, which I largely don't agree with, despite the good it did. 

If you actually read any of my posts you would see that I clearly understand that MRAs allow prohibited things to exist in Wilderness. 

You're the one missing something, straight from the act:

"... and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use."

The agencies are required to administer for recreation and historical uses. Both the USFS and NPS have said over and over and over that climbing is an important recreational and historical use. That means that if fixed anchors are necessary for climbing, then the agencies NEED to do an MRA for them, they actually can't "ban" bolts without violating the Wilderness Act. 

I'd argue that you're post is actually a side effect of Access Fund's efforts, which cause more confusion than necessary, and have people lashing out at straw men.

J E wrote:

Whoa there bro. Just because I care how government effects me doesn't mean I believe it's right or work for them. I find most of what is going on here too be silly, and a silly side effect of government, and silly side effects of the wilderness act, which I largely don't agree with, despite the good it did. 

If you actually read any of my posts you would see that I clearly understand that MRAs allow prohibited things to exist in Wilderness. 

You're the one missing something, straight from the act:

"... and shall so administer such area for such other purposes for which it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use."

The agencies are required to administer for recreation and historical uses. Both the USFS and NPS have said over and over and over that climbing is an important recreational and historical use. That means that if fixed anchors are necessary for climbing, then the agencies NEED to do an MRA for them, they actually can't "ban" bolts without violating the Wilderness Act. 

I'd argue that you're post is actually a side effect of Access Fund's efforts, which cause more confusion than necessary, and have people lashing out at straw men.

I read all of your posts and understand your position to be that bolts are installations and you trust the MRA process to protect the status quo of current climbing regulation.

Well, two questions for you. 

Do you really think a land manger will side with a recreation opportunity over wilderness character?  If so, why isn't mountain biking allowed anywhere in wilderness?  Under your logic, agencies could use the MRA process to provide recreational opportunities in the form of mountain biking.  BUT they don't because wilderness character trumps recreation.   Why you would want to allow the government to decide what climbing opportunity they will make exceptions for is ludicrous.  Of course we want the "allowed until decided to be prohibited' option instead of the "prohibited until allowed" option!

and also

What makes you think that the MRA process won't find that fixed anchors are not the minimum requirement for a wilderness area, and the route subsequently removed.  The recent decision by Joshua Tree to deny a rebolting permit is proof land managers can/will climbing through the MRA process.  Can you provide ANY example (besides your debunked airstrip example) of a completed MRA that protects climbing?

Derek B wrote:

...

Do you really think a land manger will side with a recreation opportunity over wilderness character?  If so, why isn't mountain biking allowed anywhere in wilderness?  Under your logic, agencies could use the MRA process to provide recreational opportunities in the form of mountain biking.  BUT they don't because wilderness character trumps recreation.   

I still fail to see what's wrong with this, the whole point of wilderness areas is to preserve wilderness character over other opportunities, including recreation and rock climbing. 

I for one am in favor of this goal, and think arguing against it for our user group is destructive. I think it's possible for climbing and even bolts (to a degree) to exist without affecting the wilderness character, but there needs to be a line somewhere. The 'climbing community' doesn't have a very good record of policing itself on this. If they did maybe it would be different and it would keep flying under the radar and not even be noticed by land managers. Now climbing has tons of users like many other outdoor activities (such as mountain biking which you mentioned). The easier we make it to climb in these places, the more wilderness character is impacted, because of hardware of course, but even just by sheer number of people. 

I do think a total prohibition is unreasonable and unenforceable, but I'm not against all regulations. I know this isn't how politics and messaging work (which is why I suspect the access fund and others have taken a hard line on this), but I'd love to see a more nuanced discussion from them about what kind of climbing/bolting/etc. is actually compatible with wilderness character. 

Where does the line lay?

Greg Kosinski wrote:

I still fail to see what's wrong with this, the whole point of wilderness areas is to preserve wilderness character over other opportunities, including recreation and rock climbing. 

I for one am in favor of this goal, and think arguing against it for our user group is destructive. I think it's possible for climbing and even bolts (to a degree) to exist without affecting the wilderness character, but there needs to be a line somewhere. The 'climbing community' doesn't have a very good record of policing itself on this. If they did maybe it would be different and it would keep flying under the radar and not even be noticed by land managers. Now climbing has tons of users like many other outdoor activities (such as mountain biking which you mentioned). The easier we make it to climb in these places, the more wilderness character is impacted, because of hardware of course, but even just by sheer number of people. 

I do think a total prohibition is unreasonable and unenforceable, but I'm not against all regulations. I know this isn't how politics and messaging work (which is why I suspect the access fund and others have taken a hard line on this), but I'd love to see a more nuanced discussion from them about what kind of climbing/bolting/etc. is actually compatible with wilderness character. 

Where does the line lay?

It is not the Access Fund that isn't taking a nuanced position here, but the NPS/NFS and, pushing them, groups such as Wildness Watch. The AF ( and AAC) have been trying to negotiate this issue for years, and believed that there was a reasonable resolution in place ( no power drills in wilderness, as one aspect) and a template for addressing specific situations as they occurred. This has been the situation for years and seemed to largely be working successfully, until the Agencies initiated the current crisis when they promulgated these proposed draconian regulations.

The current situation is that, now that these regulations have been officially promulgated, the only option is to, by using the legally-mandated public comment procedure, try to prevent them from becoming officially adopted. We may not be successful, but if we are ( and it does sometimes happen), climbing organizations can then make a further effort to seek a more nuanced approach from the Agencies. If we don't try ( and the public comments are the only method to do so) then these regulations will automatically go into effect, after which it will be even more of an uphill battle to seek any 'nuance'---and that will be through a very cumbersome, low probability of success, case-by-case process.

Greg Kosinski wrote:

… I'd love to see a more nuanced discussion from them about what kind of climbing/bolting/etc. is actually compatible with wilderness character.

… or just working with climbers to define terms and phrases with which wilderness guidelines could be framed. Further refine those with USFS  and NPS to meet their needs to write guidelines  we all can understand. I’d continuing donating to an AF who had that vision.

And this definition work needn’t and probably shouldn’t be just about fixed anchors.   I know my local wilderness managers are not focused on climber impact just in terms of that bolt or this tat.  Addressing the specific concerns in the context of climbing could potentially allow fixed anchors where they might not be allowed when the alternative is to only talk in terms of fixed anchors.

In saying the above, I’m assuming a vision of a national guideline who’s implementation can vary from wilderness to wilderness, and is dependent on collaboration between local management and local climber advocacy groups (if any), except almost certainly a better guideline than the current USFS one.

Bill Lawry wrote:

… or just working with climbers to define terms and phrases with which wilderness guidelines could be framed. Further refine those with USFS  and NPS to meet their needs to write guidelines  we all can understand. I’d continuing donating to an AF who had that vision.

And this definition work needn’t and probably shouldn’t be just about fixed anchors.   I know my local wilderness managers are not focused on climber impact just in terms of that bolt or this tat.  Addressing the specific concerns in the context of climbing could potentially allow fixed anchors where they might not be allowed when the alternative is to only talk in terms of fixed anchors.

In saying the above, I’m assuming a vision of a national guideline who’s implementation can vary from wilderness to wilderness, and is dependent on collaboration between local management and local climber advocacy groups (if any), except almost certainly a better guideline than the current USFS one.

Bill, referring to my post just a few minutes ago, why are you suggesting that the AF has not had that 'vision' or has not attempted to engage in such discussions? I was not involved in the AF's efforts ( beyond being a member), but from past experience, I believe that was what they were trying to do, but were 'shut down' by the bureaucracy, who promulgated these regulations  despite the AF's efforts. What you are seeing now is the AF's ( and most of the rest of the climbing community's) response, but not all the unfortunately unsuccessful efforts that has been going on for years previously.

I want to respond to a point you made in an earlier post, that it will be 'the courts' that will make the final determination if bolts are 'installations'. I doubt that will be the case, in most such situations the courts ( under the separation of powers) will defer to the Agencies' (the executive branch ) interpretation.

Greg Kosinski wrote:

I still fail to see what's wrong with this, the whole point of wilderness areas is to preserve wilderness character over other opportunities, including recreation and rock climbing.

I'd love to believe this, but I see so many counter-examples locally.

Derek B wrote:

I read all of your posts and understand your position to be that bolts are installations and you trust the MRA process to protect the status quo of current climbing regulation.

Well, two questions for you. 

Do you really think a land manger will side with a recreation opportunity over wilderness character?  If so, why isn't mountain biking allowed anywhere in wilderness?  Under your logic, agencies could use the MRA process to provide recreational opportunities in the form of mountain biking.  BUT they don't because wilderness character trumps recreation.   Why you would want to allow the government to decide what climbing opportunity they will make exceptions for is ludicrous.  Of course we want the "allowed until decided to be prohibited' option instead of the "prohibited until allowed" option!

and also

What makes you think that the MRA process won't find that fixed anchors are not the minimum requirement for a wilderness area, and the route subsequently removed.  The recent decision by Joshua Tree to deny a rebolting permit is proof land managers can/will climbing through the MRA process.  Can you provide ANY example (besides your debunked airstrip example) of a completed MRA that protects climbing?

First: I guess you didn't read the Wilderness Act except. Recreation IS Wilderness Character. So I think they will value recreation because the law obligates them to. 

Second question: I suspect there will be some routes that the MRA process says aren't in line with Wilderness. If facts support that, then so be it. We should be making sure decisions are supported by publicly available facts, and the process is accountable. I'm not necessarily in favor of the routes instantly being closed and chopped, mostly because chopping routes is a whole can of worms. 

Joshua Tree rejected that permit to replace bolts on freak brothers, but it has also permitted thousands of bolt replacements in the park, many in wilderness. They probably did a bunch of MRAs for those, but it's not public. That's my main concern with the rejected permit, it's not public. We have no way of knowing why they said no. Which is not good. There may have been a very valid reason to say no. 

Greg Kosinski wrote:

I still fail to see what's wrong with this, the whole point of wilderness areas is to preserve wilderness character over other opportunities, including recreation and rock climbing. 

I for one am in favor of this goal, and think arguing against it for our user group is destructive. I think it's possible for climbing and even bolts (to a degree) to exist without affecting the wilderness character, but there needs to be a line somewhere. The 'climbing community' doesn't have a very good record of policing itself on this. If they did maybe it would be different and it would keep flying under the radar and not even be noticed by land managers. Now climbing has tons of users like many other outdoor activities (such as mountain biking which you mentioned). The easier we make it to climb in these places, the more wilderness character is impacted, because of hardware of course, but even just by sheer number of people. 

I do think a total prohibition is unreasonable and unenforceable, but I'm not against all regulations. I know this isn't how politics and messaging work (which is why I suspect the access fund and others have taken a hard line on this), but I'd love to see a more nuanced discussion from them about what kind of climbing/bolting/etc. is actually compatible with wilderness character. 

Where does the line lay?

I totally agree.  It should be much more nuanced than simply fixed anchors are or are not allowed.  Full on crags don't belong in wilderness, but certain fixed anchors absolutely do.  BUT I wouldn't want to leave it up to the government to determine which is which.  Maybe climbing staff at each park can parse the nuances, but leaving up to big government and their MRAs is a terrible idea.

J E wrote:

First: I guess you didn't read the Wilderness Act except. Recreation IS Wilderness Character. So I think they will value recreation because the law obligates them to. 

Second question: I suspect there will be some routes that the MRA process says aren't in line with Wilderness. If facts support that, then so be it. We should be making sure decisions are supported by publicly available facts, and the process is accountable. I'm not necessarily in favor of the routes instantly being closed and chopped, mostly because chopping routes is a whole can of worms. 

Joshua Tree rejected that permit to replace bolts on freak brothers, but it has also permitted thousands of bolt replacements in the park, many in wilderness. They probably did a bunch of MRAs for those, but it's not public. That's my main concern with the rejected permit, it's not public. We have no way of knowing why they said no. Which is not good. There may have been a very valid reason to say no. 

Then why is mountain biking still prohibited in literally every wilderness area?  That is the exact same box that "prohibited" fixed anchors will be put into.

The bottom line is that fixed anchors should be allowed on paper until specific uses of them is prohibited in practice.  Not the other way around, where fixed anchors are prohibited until some non-climbing government official decides to spend money on approving them.

Derek B wrote:

Then why is mountain biking still prohibited in literally every wilderness area?  That is the exact same box that "prohibited" fixed anchors will be put into.

The bottom line is that fixed anchors should be allowed on paper until specific uses of them is prohibited in practice.  Not the other way around, where fixed anchors are prohibited until some non-climbing government official decides to spend money on approving them.

Fixed anchors aren't the same as mountain biking under this policy, mountain biking is not historic for one. Additionally, the Wilderness act qualifies what recreation is appropriate, focusing on solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. Mountain biking is obviously much less primitive than climbing, and probably less unconfined with less solitude. Again, climbing has been specifically called out by the agencies as very Wilderness appropriate. Mountain biking is the opposite.

We do know that agencies, when new Wilderness areas are established, don't immediately remove every prohibited thing or declare every prohibited thing "illegal". I suspect there will be very little to no immediate change in NPS/USFS climbing areas after this policy is enacted. 

OK JE, you're obviously quite confused.

You think that climbing is spelled out in the Wilderness Act as a historic from of recreation.  It's not.  And then you're against the PARC act, even though it would legally proclaim climbing as an appropriate use of wilderness.  

You are in favor of classifying all bolts, slings, pitons as prohibited because you imagine the government will spend money on making exceptions to wilderness law for climbing.  They likely can't afford to do that.  But you are against the Access Funds attempts to rally a public voice in the matter because you disagree with climbers getting a "carve out" of wilderness law.   

You say there will be no change in the status quo after fixed anchors become prohibited.  Well, JE, its already happening in Joshua Tree.

Here's a group that would appreciate your anticlimbing views more than MP - https://wildernesswatch.org

The Wilderness Watch has published a lot of propaganda that I believe is misinformed and disturbing. Below are a few articles for folks interested in what the climbing community is up against. I personally found reading the published material from WW to be disturbing. 

https://www.wildernesswatch.org/images/wild-issues/2023/PARC-Act-QA.pdf

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/opinion/guest_shot/anchors-away-wilderness-doesnt-need-hardware/article_ffc7cb0e-a360-5ff0-8c54-f3edf6121ef2.html

https://wildernesswatch.org/rock-climbing-act-will-weaken-the-wilderness-act 

Derek B wrote:

OK JE, you're obviously quite confused.

You think that climbing is spelled out in the Wilderness Act as a historic from of recreation.  It's not.  And then you're against the PARC act, even though it would legally proclaim climbing as an appropriate use of wilderness.  

You are in favor of classifying all bolts, slings, pitons as prohibited because you imagine the government will spend money on making exceptions to wilderness law for climbing.  They likely can't afford to do that.  But you are against the Access Funds attempts to rally a public voice in the matter because you disagree with climbers getting a "carve out" of wilderness law.   

You say there will be no change in the status quo after fixed anchors become prohibited.  Well, JE, its already happening in Joshua Tree.

Here's a group that would appreciate your anticlimbing views more than MP - https://wildernesswatch.org

PARC Act is fine, it's just a waste of time, I'm neutral on it. If Congress wants to tell the executive branch what it already knows, and codify an idea into law that's been policy for decades, that's fine. 

I don't think the Wilderness act says anything specifically about climbing, but it talks about primitive and unconfined recreation, and the agencies already have decades old policy like:

"The NPS recognizes that climbing is a legitimate and appropriate use of wilderness."

The government can manage the land it owns. Both the USFS and NPS have laws that allow them to impound abandoned property after it has been left for 24 hrs. Anyone want to try to argue a bolt isn't abandoned property? 

You seem to want to argue about "installations", I want to see good national policy. 

Choosing your battles is important.  Wilderness Watch is a small group of small-minded extremists causing an absurd uproar over a foolish argument.  This whole deal is rediculous bullshit that needs left exactly as is was.  Ignore Wilderness Watch.  There is no problem, there needs be no "solution" in laws, rules, guidance, oversight, or policy.  

• Stiles wrote:

Choosing your battles is important.  Wilderness Watch is a small group of small-minded extremists causing an absurd uproar over a foolish argument.  This whole deal is rediculous bullshit that needs left exactly as is was.  Ignore Wilderness Watch.  There is no problem, there needs be no "solution" in laws, rules, guidance, oversight, or policy.  

There is a 'slight problem' with your proposal. Whether or not Wilderness Watch advocated for these restrictions, it is the NPS/NFS that have formally promulgated these regulations, and, unless stopped, they will become official policy=the law. So, whether we like it or not, there is in fact an actual 'problem' that can't be "ignored".

Stiles wrote:

Choosing your battles is important.  Wilderness Watch is a small group of small-minded extremists causing an absurd uproar over a foolish argument.  This whole deal is rediculous bullshit that needs left exactly as is was.  Ignore Wilderness Watch.  There is no problem, there needs be no "solution" in laws, rules, guidance, oversight, or policy.  

This was going to piss the rangers off even if Wilderness Watch never existed planetmountain.com/en/news/…

Tim McCabe wrote:

This was going to piss the rangers off even if Wilderness Watch never existed ... ...

That violation of existing rules in JTree has nothing to do with general wilderness bolting policy.  That situation broke the existing rule requiring permits for bolts in JTree wilderness and would break the general rules about wilderness bolting anywhere.  No new rules are required for that situation, only enforcement of existing rules.

Tim McCabe wrote:

This was going to piss the rangers off even if Wilderness Watch never existed planetmountain.com/en/news/…

Probably not helpful to trot out a transgression that is more than a decade old as a recent example of climber misconduct.