Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware
|
Aug 2023 thread: JTree Hobbit Hole Bonfires: Rangers Seeking Information I suspect about half the posts in there represent the subset of us that's truly not helpful. It isn't a secret. |
Alan Rubin wrote: Yes, agreed. Its far too late to not pay attention to a small band of whiney, uneducated, manipulating radicalists. It's too bad life is so priviledged in this country that we must create our own drama out of thin air to keep things interesting. |
|
As always, there is a lot of nuance in the language of these policies and a lot of emotional, reactionary rhetoric that speaks in broad, generalizing terms without fully understanding the precise questions at hand. I've been following this story for many months, have interviewed a range of people on all sides, on and off the record, read and reread stacks of legal documents, and reviewed the technical wording with experts (and still get it slightly wrong sometimes) in order to help people gain clearer perspectives. I hope more people take the time to read my latest short article that explains the situation in plain terms: alpinist.com/newswire/two-p… I would like to highlight the following points: • "Fixed anchor" is a term that includes ANY gear left behind to facilitate an ascent or descent, so it's not just bolts in question under these proposed policies. • The proposed policies would categorize each fixed anchor as an "installation"; the Wilderness Act explicitly forbids installations, which have traditionally been infrastructure such as bridges and fences. • The policies would mandate a review of all fixed anchors on EXISTING routes in Wilderness (and some not in Wilderness, if the USFS policy is adopted). • Advice for writing comments to the NPS and USPS, presented by American Alpine Club and Access Fund representatives during the webinar last Thursday, Jan. 11, as quoted in my story: American Alpine Club Vice President Nina Williams emphasized that in order to move forward, climbers need to build trust with these government agencies. When sharing our comments, we should be sincere and assume the best intentions, rather than lashing out in anger. “There has historically been friction between climbers and the administration,” she said. “But we are at a point where it’s not so much a battle as much as two groups trying to achieve goals that are similar in value but different in execution and different in the trust that we … are … willing to put in each other. How much can climbers trust the federal administration; how much can the administration trust the climbers to self-regulate?” Keith emphasized that Access Fund’s efforts are not a scheme “to find some exception for a new, novel prohibited use.” “A real fundamental piece here is that we need to reserve in-the-moment safety decisions for climbers,” he said. “We need to make sure that climbers have the authority and are not going to be disincentivized to protect themselves. That doesn’t mean that they can abuse these emergency exceptions or other elements…. We should make sure that climbers are the ones that have the judgment in the moment, and the authorization to place safe anchors or replace existing ones.” When submitting comments to the NPS and USFS portals, Keith recommended that people include their personal stories. “Talk about how these new policies would affect your experience,” he said. That will also bring something unique to your comments that the agencies would give serious consideration to.” ### Thanks for reading, Derek Franz, Alpinist magazine |
Cam Brown wrote: I'm frustrated that the lobbyists most vocally pushing this legislation seem to have no understanding of how fixed anchors are used in climbing - reading that oped on anchors is cringeworthy. Also the slippery slope fallacies they seem to keep bringing up are ridiculous. There's some deep hypocrisy from these people when they describe the overcrowding they observe... while being in the overcrowded places themselves. It's completely tone-deaf. |
Ben B wrote: Because antagonizing people we disagree with, or who don't understand our point of view, is not a way to win their hearts and minds. Instead of assuming that our government wants to stick it to us, start from a place that assumes best intentions, that climbers and Wilderness land managers have more in common than not. Screaming at people gets us nowhere. Attract flies with honey instead of vinegar, etc. |
|
This is happening because there's so many people climbing, now. Overuse of the wild. If bolts get removed from some of the backcountry, l'd guess 80% of climbers will get cut out cause they dont know trad. So we got that going for us, which is nice. There will be more accidents, and local SAR units will get run ragged. And crags will get crowded as all hell. We reap what we sew. |
|
I left the country recently to go climbing so have only superficially had time to keep up with this topic. Now that I have read (some) of the follow-up I think this section has been hijacked by a “new” member (joined very recently, no name, no location, has never posted a single route ascent, and has only posted on this topic parroting the Wilderness Watch agenda of no fixed anchors). Maybe I am wrong about their intent but the result of these repeated posts is to distract the reader from writing their letter opposing this ruling. I think this “hijacking” of the topic is subtle but readily apparent if you read enough of the comments. It reminds me of one of Machiavelli’s statements to mislead the masses with half truths in his infamous book The Prince: “Occasionally words must serve to veil the facts. But let this happen in such a way that no one become aware of it; or, if it should be noticed, excuses must be at hand to be produced immediately.” I suspect all this persons posts are planned to distract climbers from the issue at hand until the readers get to the point that they never write a letter to support the sport they love. Don’t let that be you. You need to oppose this potential ruling. The ENTIRE ISSUE HERE IS will you ever be allowed to climb in wilderness or in our national parks? (And it could spill over to other federal lands as well). This is NOT about bolting, it is about fixed anchors. If you have ever climbed a multipitch route and gotten caught in a storm or gotten in over your head or it is too dangerous, or you have had to do a dangerous traverse - you know for a fact that you have to leave gear behind and rappel or pendulum. That is a fixed anchor and that is necessary for safe climbing. Sometimes it’s a bolt, more often slings and gear, but it is some fixed gear left behind. If these are outlawed the next logical step is to outlaw climbing because we all know we have to be able to retreat (leave fixed anchors) and therefor we will be breaking the law. So the best way to enforce the law is to outlaw the sport. It happened for base jumping, it happened for white water river running in some parks (Yellowstone for example), it can happen for climbing. So let us refocus on the topic at hand – fixed anchors in the wilderness. If Wilderness watch and some of these overzealous posters who have joined simply for this discussion have their way – and they have been pushing this for decades – climbing will be severely impacted (outlawed) in many places. So once again - if you have not already done so --- WRITE A LETTER RIGHT NOW on your word processor, copy it and paste it into the links provided below and check it off your to-do list. We have been given an extension but that runs out at the end of the month. Suggestions:
Go here and post it - SOON. Then email every climbing acquaintance you know and tell them to write a letter too. Action Alert: Stop the Bolt Prohibition! — Access Fund https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiFmaCi6MSDAxUXKEQIHULUD1IQFnoECBYQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.accessfund.org%2Faction-alerts%2Fstop-the-bolt-prohibition&usg=AOvVaw3iG2m8BbW47MdAV9Du8cpE&opi=89978449 |
|
https://www.climbing.com/news/climber-bolts-5-3-over-1000-year-old-petroglyphs-in-moab/ Self police problem here. Just one of many. |
Tim Wolfe wrote: I'm not sure if you're talking about me, the guy who has repeatedly said that I actually think the Wilderness Act is pretty stupid. In fact, it's probably at fault for how strange this debate is. I think ultimately this whole debate stems from whether or not the federal government can permit, remove, make illegal, or otherwise manage fixed anchors on government land. They clearly can. In Wilderness, they have to manage for wilderness values. Which means man made stuff being generally prohibited, but commonly being allowed to facilitate unconfined recreation. Why would the Wilderness Act be silent on fixed anchors? They impact Wilderness in many ways that any climber understands. (Tell me with a straight face that El Cap is unchanged by fixed anchors, without restoring to, "but there is a road right next to it") Whether you like the government or not, the land management agencies are entirely designed to make decisions like, "is this bolt appropriate in Wilderness". The government has a well established way of approaching that question, which is by using an MRA. It's a waste of time to try to say bolts are exempt from the Wilderness act and the government isn't allowed to manage them with Wilderness values in mind. Any public comment that says that will go on the trash heap while the agencies make potentially bad policies on how the permit systems will actually look. Apparently saying that means I'm a deranged Wilderness acolyte. If I'm mad at the Access Fund and their position, it's because to me it sounds like: "We love the Wilderness Act as long as it doesn't apply to us, and keeps those other users out of our pristine wilderness, that we want to alter and change without oversight" The arguments I've heard are, "but other groups do that too" and "David brower bolted ship rock and advocated for the wilderness act". Not particularly compelling. |
jake jones wrote: You mean when the route was removed by fellow climbers and the FA was brought on an Access Fund live program to discuss and apologize? Sounds like fairly effective self-correcting to me. |
J E wrote: What are you missing about the importance of fixed anchors being allowed by default? Nobody is saying they want an exception to the wilderness act for climbing. You're completely missing the nuance of the conversation and playing apologist to those who are anti-climbing. You continue to misrepresent the position of the Access Fund, so it's obvious you lack simple understanding of the issue and how these things play out. To answer your question - why would the wilderness act be silent on fixed anchors? Because depending on their use, they may or may not impact wilderness character, and classifying all fixed anchors' impact on wilderness character as equal is not appropriate. DUH! Also, what are you talking about with the government using MRAs? Please, please provide one single example of an MRA being used to justify allowing otherwise prohibited recreation. Actually, please give any example of an exception made to wilderness prohibitions for recreation anywhere. MRAs are used for things like using helicopters to remove waste from the backcountry, maintaining infrastructure like bridges and sometimes trails, etc...the whole point of an MRA is to preserve wilderness character. Maybe they can be used to allow a power drill to replace an APPROPRIATE bolt, but if the bolt is deemed prohibited then there is no minimum requirement to replace it. You're arguing that we should somehow believe the government will use MRAs for something completely outside their purpose to make wilderness exceptions for climbing, which is absurd. See for yourself. Pretend you want to do a new route and have to fill out this MRA worksheet to justify it.   |
Derek B wrote: "Yes. Trails are necessary in SEKI to preserve the natural and primitive and unconfined recreation qualities of wilderness character, and in support of the recreational, scientific, and conservation public purposes of wilderness. Trails are also necessary to comply with the Organic Act of the NPS, the enabling legislation of Sequoia and Kings Canyon national parks, and the National Scenic Trails Act. Construction and maintenance of a trail system to provide diverse recreational opportunities in wilderness is also consistent with the guidance of the SEKI General Management Plan, the 2006 NPS Management Policies, RM 41, and the Comprehensive Management Plan for the Pacific Crest Trail." Agreed, anchors may have impact beyond their value for recreation, or they may have recreation value beyond their impact. Exactly what the point of an MRA is. Everything built, installed, in Wilderness is prohibited until justified as necessary (even trails, as seen in the above excerpt). Why is it hard to understand that the Wilderness Act generally prohibits development unless it's justified as necessary. That seems like common sense? Edit: that worksheet seems easy, and like it could be used to justify new anchors or anchor replacement on a route quote easily (and probably already has many times since it's from rocky mountain national park and they have plenty of fixed anchors). |
J E wrote: Your cherry-picked example left out the entire preceding section that says trails are necessary to preserve wilderness character. There is no reason to ask if the action contributes to the recreation goal if it doesn't first preserve wilderness character.
That seems to be the part you're missing in all of this. Trails and signs are allowed because they help preserve wilderness character. Under the new rules, if you can't justify how a fixed anchor preserves wilderness character, then there is no exception made to the prohibition. |
Derek B wrote: Did you even read what you posted? The aspect of wilderness character they preserve is primitive and unconfined recreation!!! One of the most important aspects of Wilderness Character is primitive and unconfined recreation. They are not incompatible. |
|
You're acting like the priority aspect of wilderness character is recreational value. In reality that is only one part, and the primitive and unconfined aspects are quite subjective.
I see where you are coming from. However, you're equating climbing routes to trails and advocating for the NPS to manage the establishment and maintenance of routes. We all know you aren't allowed to just create your own trail in a National Park and then later ask the park service to make exceptions to wilderness rules to allow maintenance of your new trail. Why WOULDN'T we oppose managing climbing routes in the same way as established hiking trails? We could MAYBE trust the NPS to maintain climbing access trails, decent routes or fixed lines in the same way as trails. But conceding the management of fixed anchors on routes would mean the end of establishing new routes in wilderness. Why are you in favor of that? |
|
Here's my comment: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulation of fixed anchors in wilderness areas. I have climbed since 1986 and have established new routes in designated wilderness areas, which has included placing bolts, pitons and slings used as rappel anchors. The commitment and adventure involved with these ascents, and ascents of routes established by others, has been a highlight in my life and is the type of activity envisioned by the authors of the Wilderness Act. The reality is that, even for climbers much bolder than I, fixed anchors are absolutely necessary to facilitate climbing. Fixed anchors protect against the possibility of fatally long falls, facilitate safe points from which climbers can belay each other and often provide the only means of descent, specifically where walking off a summit is impossible and rappelling is required. Fixed anchors have been used in climbing in the United States for approximately 100 years, and climbing was a well-known activity in wilderness areas at the time the Act was passed. Many new wilderness areas have been designated with full knowledge of the presence of climbing and fixed anchors within wilderness boundaries. Fixed anchors were not a factor in the passage of the Act nor were they in subsequent designations of areas where climbing is a major form of recreation such as the Rocky Mountain National Park and Yosemite Wilderness Areas as well as areas deemed eligible for wilderness protection like those within Grand Teton National Park. The same is true for dozens of other wilderness designations. Given this history, there is a strong argument that that Congress never intended fixed anchors to be defined as “installations” or that it intended to prohibit, limit or regulate climbing any more than it did hiking, hunting or horseback riding. In my view, the agency is not required to take any action with respect to fixed anchors. To the extent the agency disagrees and feels compelled to go forward with management of fixed anchors, a nationally based approached would be far more efficient than a unit-by-unit process. For example, a national permit by rule or national programmatic MRA could be adopted which simply maintains the 100+ year status quo under which the placement and replacement of fixed anchors is allowed. Any “problem areas” such as bolt intensive sport climbing walls within a designated wilderness can be addressed case by case. Programmatic reviews, permits by rule and nationwide permits are common land management tools- programmatic NEPA, EPA general industrial stormwater permits and the Army Corps of Engineers nationwide Clean Water Act permits are examples where environmental impacts far more significant than fixed anchors are managed on a nationwide basis. This approach would ensure use of fixed anchors in wilderness will continue in line with historic practice, prevent fixed anchor use that is inconsistent with wilderness ideals and avoids imposing requirements on units without the resources, knowledge or experience to manage fixed anchors. |
Tim Dolan wrote: This is fantastic. Good point about the addition of RMNP and Yosemite to the wilderness system with no complaints about existence of fixed anchors. |
Stiles wrote: How often do you trad climb with zero fixed anchors or gear, even for rappelling? |
Aaron Kolb wrote: Is there a context to this question that I’m missing? This question can’t be serious. |
|
Has anyone ever had a sasquatch encounter in the wilderness? |
