Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

apogee wrote:

Is there a context to this question that I’m missing? This question can’t be serious.

I'm thinking of a route like North Arete of Bear Creek Spire. In theory, there's no fixed anchors on that route: it's an all-gear route with a walkoff. But I got caught in a lightning storm a pitch or two from the top and bailed off a tat anchor I found.

Do you want the Forest Service determining whether replacing a sling in that tat anchor was a true emergency situation and whether using that anchor was the fastest and most expeditious way down? I don't, which is why I'm going to comment that the restrictions on replacing existing anchors in wilderness compromise safety.

I’m not aware of walk-offs on Pingora, or Sugarloaf in the Organs, for example. 

It's my view that the NPS/USFS needs to arrive at a reasonable strategy to manage the issue of fixed anchors, but I'm a bit incredulous that there is a belief that bolts and any kind of fixed anchors are present and required on virtually any rock climbing route. There are many, many routes that I have climbed that did not require any kind of fixed anchors to ascend or descend (emergency bail anchors notwithstanding).

Do you want the Forest Service determining whether replacing a sling in that tat anchor was a true emergency situation and whether using that anchor was the fastest and most expeditious way down?

Do you leave a name tag on your bail slings?

Cherokee Nunes wrote:

Do you leave a name tag on your bail slings?

Do you want agencies to close routes to climbing because "climbers aren't following the rules?"

apogee wrote:

It's my view that the NPS/USFS needs to arrive at a reasonable strategy to manage the issue of fixed anchors, but I'm a bit incredulous that there is a belief that bolts and any kind of fixed anchors are present and required on virtually any rock climbing route. There are many, many routes that I have climbed that did not require any kind of fixed anchors to ascend or descend (emergency bail anchors notwithstanding).

But 'emergency bail anchors' would still be a violation of the proposed regulations. Yeah, probably not frequently enforced, but sometimes....

More importantly, agreed that not all wilderness routes require fixed anchors ( again we aren't only talking about bolts), but a significant number of them do require some--and a few require a substantial number of them--El Cap, for example. The proposed regulations don't distinguish among them.

Alan, I'm aware of all of that. What's interesting to me is that it seems that there is a perception that all climbing routes require fixed anchors, which simply is not the case at all. I don't know how pervasive that view is, but it strikes me as a very limited understanding of how climbing happens in the US (or anywhere, really).

apogee wrote:

Alan, I'm aware of all of that. What's interesting to me is that it seems that there is a perception that all climbing routes require fixed anchors, which simply is not the case at all. I don't know how pervasive that view is, but it strikes me as a very limited understanding of how climbing happens in the US (or anywhere, really).

Ok, you climb the real-gnar trad-only walk-off routes, we get it. This is way beside the point. 

I think we all should be trying to work together and figure out some more decent talking points to put into our comments. I'm trying to write one for the NPS and it's pretty tricky because it just references the RM41, which is pretty clear in its definitions (i.e. of installations). I'm not sure how to argue around that. I like Tim Dolan's comment from the previous page that focuses on the historical precedent. But this would basically be saying the already "published" RM41 has to be thrown out as well.

Maybe J E has a point and we should concede that they are installations, but focus on promoting a so-called programmatic MRA (I think I know what that means) as Tim Dolan suggested in his comment.

Alan Rubin wrote:

But 'emergency bail anchors' would still be a violation of the proposed regulations. Yeah, probably not frequently enforced, but sometimes....

More importantly, agreed that not all wilderness routes require fixed anchors ( again we aren't only talking about bolts), but a significant number of them do require some--and a few require a substantial number of them--El Cap, for example. The proposed regulations don't distinguish among them.

I think this is exactly the point. As you pointed out, all of the bolts on El Cap absolutely do change the 'wilderness character' of the area. Without them the walls would be much more difficult or even impossible to ascend. I don't think anyone can say El Cap is really a wilderness with a straight face anymore, and a large part of that is because of the bolts on there. And of course climbers don't want these restrictions because it would shut down almost all of the climbing on there and make access extremely difficult. But the argument 'it would make climbing there impossible' does not disprove the point that bolts and anchors do in fact change the character of the place. 

It feels like two sides shouting past one another, no one is arguing the same points. Climbers are saying "if we can't have these installations, it will shut down climbing there" and the other side saying "if you can't climb it without the installations, it shouldn't be climbed". Both are true to their own respective sides, and it's actually an argument over what a 'wilderness' should be rather than smaller arguments over what counts as an installation. The people who hold the power though are generally the ones saying "if you can't climb it without the installations, it shouldn't be climbed", and I don't think the response I'm seeing here is an effective argument against that.

Greg Kosinski wrote:

I think this is exactly the point. As you pointed out, all of the bolts on El Cap absolutely do change the 'wilderness character' of the area. Without them the walls would be much more difficult or even impossible to ascend. I don't think anyone can say El Cap is really a wilderness with a straight face anymore, and a large part of that is because of the bolts on there. And of course climbers don't want these restrictions because it would shut down almost all of the climbing on there and make access extremely difficult. But the argument 'it would make climbing there impossible' does not disprove the point that bolts and anchors do in fact change the character of the place. 

It feels like two sides shouting past one another, no one is arguing the same points. Climbers are saying "if we can't have these installations, it will shut down climbing there" and the other side saying "if you can't climb it without the installations, it shouldn't be climbed". Both are true to their own respective sides, and it's actually an argument over what a 'wilderness' should be rather than smaller arguments over what counts as an installation. The people who hold the power though are generally the ones saying "if you can't climb it without the installations, it shouldn't be climbed", and I don't think the response I'm seeing here is an effective argument against that.

I think that the NPS would be erasing about 90 years of climbing history in YNP alone, if all 'wilderness' routes requiring fixed anchors ( think Cathedral Spires) in the Valley alone were to now be declared illegal, is a powerful argument 

Do you want agencies to close routes to climbing because "climbers aren't following the rules?"

Reworded to our specific discussion point:

"Do you want agencies to close routes to climbing because "retreating climbers didn't get authorization to place a bail sling?"

I'm not worried about that.

Alan Rubin wrote:

I think that the NPS would be erasing about 90 years of climbing history in YNP alone, if all 'wilderness' routes requiring fixed anchors ( think Cathedral Spires) in the Valley alone were to now be declared illegal, is a powerful argument 

Then start arguing that point instead! 

I'm so reminded of Reinhold Messner's "Murder of the Impossible."

I'm guessing many of you will not understand what that means. You likely came to climbing after the murder.

Messner's Murder of the Impossible, 1971

Greg Kosinski wrote:

I think this is exactly the point. As you pointed out, all of the bolts on El Cap absolutely do change the 'wilderness character' of the area. Without them the walls would be much more difficult or even impossible to ascend. I don't think anyone can say El Cap is really a wilderness with a straight face anymore, and a large part of that is because of the bolts on there. And of course climbers don't want these restrictions because it would shut down almost all of the climbing on there and make access extremely difficult. But the argument 'it would make climbing there impossible' does not disprove the point that bolts and anchors do in fact change the character of the place. 

It feels like two sides shouting past one another, no one is arguing the same points. Climbers are saying "if we can't have these installations, it will shut down climbing there" and the other side saying "if you can't climb it without the installations, it shouldn't be climbed". Both are true to their own respective sides, and it's actually an argument over what a 'wilderness' should be rather than smaller arguments over what counts as an installation. The people who hold the power though are generally the ones saying "if you can't climb it without the installations, it shouldn't be climbed", and I don't think the response I'm seeing here is an effective argument against that.

I'm not sure if any of you watched any of the Joshua Tree public meetings for their climbing management plan back in 2019 or 2020 or whatever it was. 

In their plan, they specifically said that fixed anchors were installations, they needed to be approved by MRA, and bolt intensive climbs were inappropriate in wilderness. There were implementing basically the policy we're arguing about, as I understand it. 

They also said, very clearly, that the vast majority of the bolts in Wilderness were going to be unaffected, bolt replacements in Wilderness would move forward similarly as they always had. They conceded that maybe some already existing anchors were inappropriate in Wilderness. They also suggested that new routes in wilderness had an uphill battle. Although they suggested that was because the community was telling them that new Wilderness routes were almost universally bad routes on choss and it was pointless.

I just don't buy the argument that this means the government will be out to get every anchor in Wilderness. I think people just can't get over the nuance of what prohibited means in the Wilderness Act, because of that we are arguing against boogie men that don't exist. 

Brian Prince wrote:

Ok, you climb the real-gnar trad-only walk-off routes, we get it. This is way beside the point. 

I think we all should be trying to work together and figure out some more decent talking points to put into our comments. 

Brian, your characterization here is pretty off the mark, assumedly because you have formed it based on a few sentences. To be clear, my climbing experience is pretty broad in all disciplines, and I'm average (at best) in any of them. I have equally enjoyed bolt-intensive sport routes, routes that involve gear/bolts, and routes that didn't require any kind of fixed protection at all. It's all good to me.

I agree that there needs to be a pretty clear, unified voice from climbers that land managers need to hear about a rational approach to managing fixed anchors. To get there, though, is going to require that all users gain a better understanding of the diverse way that climbers climb. And compromises are going to need to be made by all of these diverse climbers- as has been mentioned, there is a strong, evidence-based argument that the land manager 'Eye of Sauron' is upon us in no small part due to our own behaviors.

apogee wrote:

Brian, your characterization here is pretty off the mark, assumedly because you have formed it based on a few sentences. To be clear, my climbing experience is pretty broad in all disciplines, and I'm average (at best) in any of them. I have equally enjoyed bolt-intensive sport routes, routes that involve gear/bolts, and routes that didn't require any kind of fixed protection at all. It's all good to me.

I agree that there needs to be a pretty clear, unified voice from climbers that land managers need to hear about a rational approach to managing fixed anchors. To get there, though, is going to require that all users gain a better understanding of the diverse way that climbers climb. And compromises are going to need to be made by all of these diverse climbers- as has been mentioned, there is a strong, evidence-based argument that the land manager 'Eye of Sauron' is upon us in no small part due to our own behaviors.

Sorry about that, Apogee. It's too easy to be a dick over the internet. I think I understood where you were coming from though and just thought it wasn't necessary to point out that not all routes rely on fixed anchors. 

Referencing J E's last post - I agree with them to an extent and also think that even if these agencies were "out to get" all fixed anchors, they simply don't have the resources. But, like others, I don't get the attitude that just wants to concede everything and thinks that not only are these proposals logical and inevitable, but that they are also no big deal. I like to develop new routes in the wilderness and basically none of them are on what I would call choss. 

J E wrote:

I'm not sure if any of you watched any of the Joshua Tree public meetings for their climbing management plan back in 2019 or 2020 or whatever it was. 

In their plan, they specifically said that fixed anchors were installations, they needed to be approved by MRA, and bolt intensive climbs were inappropriate in wilderness. There were implementing basically the policy we're arguing about, as I understand it. 

They also said, very clearly, that the vast majority of the bolts in Wilderness were going to be unaffected, bolt replacements in Wilderness would move forward similarly as they always had. They conceded that maybe some already existing anchors were inappropriate in Wilderness. They also suggested that new routes in wilderness had an uphill battle. Although they suggested that was because the community was telling them that new Wilderness routes were almost universally bad routes on choss and it was pointless.

I just don't buy the argument that this means the government will be out to get every anchor in Wilderness. I think people just can't get over the nuance of what prohibited means in the Wilderness Act, because of that we are arguing against boogie men that don't exist.

Brian Prince wrote:

Referencing J E's last post - I agree with them to an extent and also think that even if these agencies were "out to get" all fixed anchors, they simply don't have the resources. But, like others, I don't get the attitude that just wants to concede everything and thinks that not only are these proposals logical and inevitable, but that they are also no big deal. I like to develop new routes in the wilderness and basically none of them are on what I would call choss. 

1.  Joshua Tree is NOT the standard for generic wilderness.  JT has had bolting rules and procedures for many years already; they just weren't typically strongly enforced.  JT already has resources to investigate routes, unlike most places.  

2.   Their meetings did not indicate to the public what would be their specific decisions; they left it quite generalized, despite already having lists of specific routes in question.   And based on the one decision we have heard of, it seems they plan to deny replacement bolting whenever they can find a reason.

3.  But for the country as a whole, the real questions are what are to be the new rules in typical uncrowded wilderness places, unlike Joshua Tree.  In addition, the USFS proposal includes other non-wilderness areas determined to have impact issues.   It could be very easy to say: we don't have a lot of resources AND therefore, the default decision for new anchors is they are DENIED until a future MRA is complete, even for very minimal anchors.  They seem to be unable to say anything other than: ALL anchors must have an MRA.

Even existing anchors are considered highly suspect under the new proposal.  From the USFS:   cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/C…

"Existing fixed anchors and fixed equipment may be retained pending completion of a Minimum Requirements Analysis, as funding and resources allow, to determine whether they are the minimum necessary for administration of the area for Wilderness Act purposes (FSM 2355.32)"

Nathan P 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. 

Same at Tensleep? Did all those holes get repaired? Apologize all you want. The damage is done. Just saying!

jake jones wrote:

Same at Tensleep? Did all those holes get repaired? Apologize all you want. The damage is done. Just saying!

I realize that people still have an axe to grind about Ten Sleep, but equating what happened there to fixed gear in the wilderness or vandalization of an archeologically sensitive area is really not helpful or productive, especially when some people are not fully familiar with the details of said incidents.  These incidents are not    the same or even relevant to each other. 

Frank Stein wrote:

I realize that people still have an axe to grind about Ten Sleep, but equating what happened there to fixed gear in the wilderness or vandalization of an archeologically sensitive area is really not helpful or productive, especially when some people are not fully familiar with the details of said incidents.  These incidents are not    the same or even relevant to each other. 

https://www.facebook.com/reel/753881069534223  Do we need another bolt here? Self police this? Wilderness is full of unnecessary shit like this.