Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

J Ewrote:

Yet again, because the park service said fixed anchors are allowed doesn't mean they aren't prohibited installations. 

In fact, since the policy mentions that the Wilderness Act has a lot to say about fixed anchors, it implies that fixed anchors are installations. If fixed anchors weren't installations, then the Wilderness Act would be silent on them. 

Oh really, what does the Wilderness Act say about fixed anchors?   Please quote the exact words.

J Ewrote:

If fixed anchors aren't installations, then the Wilderness Act doesn't govern them, the Wilderness act wouldn't impose any restrictions on them, it legally couldn't. The Wilderness Act doesn't apply to non prohibited inanimate objects.

So why not argue for that point instead of the devil's advocate approach you've been doing? 

PWZwrote:

So why not argue for that point instead of the devil's advocate approach you've been doing? 

Because, even as a climber, I think that's silly. Fixed anchors clearly have a large impact on Wilderness (look at El Cap), and to me fixed anchors are clearly installations and subject to the act. Regardless of my opinion, I think it's exceedingly likely a court would agree that fixed anchors are installations and thus subject to complying with the Wilderness Act. 

J Ewrote:

If fixed anchors aren't installations, then the Wilderness Act doesn't govern them, the Wilderness act wouldn't impose any restrictions on them, it legally couldn't. The Wilderness Act doesn't apply to non prohibited inanimate objects. 

Every single time the park service or forest service said bolts had to be limited in number to stay compliant with the Wilderness act, they were implying that they were installations

Nah, the Wilderness Act provides substantial powers to resource managers to protect the wilderness beyond the prohibition of installations. Nothing about prohibiting litter, for example, implies that candy wrappers are installations.

Neither the Park Service nor the Forest Service are today lacking in legal authority to regulate bolts. What they are lacking is resources. Which is why they are going for what Armando Menocal correctly called the “quick fix” of prohibiting fixed anchors entirely unless permitted. Then their lack of resources works in their favor.

The problem is that they have done things the exact opposite way for 59 years. Such an abrupt about-face is absolutely going to lead to lawsuits, which is an argument against it. Rather than simplify wilderness management, it risks tying up local management plans in litigation for years and years to come.

Let's remember that the USFS document will have ramifications for climbing in non wilderness as well. This portion of their document is pretty vague, perhaps intentionally so. I'm curious to hear what everyone's interpretation of it is, and what your comments are regarding that item. 

James -wrote:

Nah, the Wilderness Act provides substantial powers to resource managers to protect the wilderness beyond the prohibition of installations. Nothing about prohibiting litter, for example, implies that candy wrappers are installations.

Neither the Park Service nor the Forest Service are today lacking in legal authority to regulate bolts. What they are lacking is resources. Which is why they are going for what Armando Menocal correctly called the “quick fix” of prohibiting fixed anchors entirely unless permitted. Then their lack of resources works in their favor.

The problem is that they have done things the exact opposite way for 59 years. Such an abrupt about-face is absolutely going to lead to lawsuits, which is an argument against it. Rather than simplify wilderness management, it risks tying up local management plans in litigation for years and years to come.

You misunderstand. The Wilderness act doesn't say anything about litter. The USFS and NPS prevent littering through different laws. Very little of the NPS/USFS legal authority comes from the Wilderness Act. 

Like I've said before, the agencies have other ways to regulate fixed anchors, for sure, besides the wilderness act.

The question at hand is, does the Wilderness Act have anything to say about fixed anchors? The USFS and NPS say it does, the Access Fund says it doesn't. 

JE, you’ve articulated the problem succinctly. The proposed management plans adopt an interpretation of the Wilderness Act that is controversial, poorly supported by the Act’s language, contradicts 59 years of agency behavior, and is not actually needed to empower them to regulate fixed anchors.

It would be faster and simpler for them to avoid the “installation” question entirely and just assert their existing authority to protect the lands under their care, which is already accepted by everyone including climbing organizations. 

Devil's advocate/intrusive thought here: SPIG 501c3 on both sides could see a lot of funding in the pipeline for years to come battling this out. 

J Ewrote:

Fixed anchors clearly have a large impact on Wilderness (look at El Cap)

I find it interesting that you keep using El Cap as your go-to example of the large impact fixed anchors can have on the wilderness. I think it perfectly exemplifies the opposite: most wilderness fixed anchors are only visible to the climbers who use them, and don’t have any noticeable impact on the wilderness experience for anyone else. I’ve never noticed anchors on El Cap before or after I began climbing (even when watching people climb it through binoculars), so if this is the dramatic impact that is supposed to justify drastically increasing regulation and barriers to access, I think that’s pretty telling.

Ironically, scars from removable pitons are much more noticeable on El Cap and in Yosemite more broadly, but removable pitons are explicitly allowed without limits in the new proposed rules. This shows the absurdity of blindly following the agency-created definitions without regard to real impact. The fact that climbers all but abolished the use of pitons for free climbing without an external mandate to do so shows that climbers have done a pretty decent job at self-policing to reduce our impact and protect the areas we love.

I find it interesting that you keep using El Cap as your go-to example of the large impact fixed anchors can have on the wilderness. I think it perfectly exemplifies the opposite: most wilderness fixed anchors are only visible to the climbers who use them, and don’t have any noticeable impact on the wilderness experience for anyone else. I’ve never noticed anchors on El Cap before or after I began climbing (even when watching people climb it through binoculars), so if this is the dramatic impact that is supposed to justify drastically increasing regulation and barriers to access, I think that’s pretty telling.

You're not considering the impact of the people, who's very presence is enabled by the bolts. No bolts, no people, or so it has been argued. So the impact of the people is in, your honor.

The distinction between anchors and people is super important. We certainly don’t want to allow any idea to take hold that it’s legal to limit climbing equipment and techniques just because some hikers don’t like seeing climbers. That would be an obviously unequal application of the law.

Collin Hwrote:

I find it interesting that you keep using El Cap as your go-to example of the large impact fixed anchors can have on the wilderness. I think it perfectly exemplifies the opposite: most wilderness fixed anchors are only visible to the climbers who use them, and don’t have any noticeable impact on the wilderness experience for anyone else. I’ve never noticed anchors on El Cap before or after I began climbing (even when watching people climb it through binoculars), so if this is the dramatic impact that is supposed to justify drastically increasing regulation and barriers to access, I think that’s pretty telling.

Ironically, scars from removable pitons are much more noticeable on El Cap and in Yosemite more broadly, but removable pitons are explicitly allowed without limits in the new proposed rules. This shows the absurdity of blindly following the agency-created definitions without regard to real impact. The fact that climbers all but abolished the use of pitons for free climbing without an external mandate to do so shows that climbers have done a pretty decent job at self-policing to reduce our impact and protect the areas we love.

Non climbers seeing fixed anchors is just one small component of the impact. 

I use El Cap as an example because without fixed anchors, it would basically just be a giant pristine cliff with falcons and swifts. Super hardcore climbers would be trying to find likely impossible routes up it. There'd basically be no people. 

The question isn't, can hikers see fixed anchors? The question is, do fixed anchors impact adventurous qualities of climbing, opportunities for solitude, the untrammeled nature of the cliff, etc. (these are words from the Wilderness Act)

The answer is obviously yes. 

J Ewrote:

Non climbers seeing fixed anchors is just one small component of the impact. 

I use El Cap as an example because without fixed anchors, it would basically just be a giant pristine cliff with falcons and swifts. Super hardcore climbers would be trying to find likely impossible routes up it. There'd basically be no people. 

The question isn't, can hikers see fixed anchors? The question is, do fixed anchors impact adventurous qualities of climbing, opportunities for solitude, the untrammeled nature of the cliff, etc. (these are words from the Wilderness Act)

The answer is obviously yes. 

oh boy, i'll make this point again, all day long: the climbers and hardware on el cap are not the problem - it's the throngs of people and the infrastructure down below, the trolley with the megaphone, the garbage trucks ratting containers, the pollution, the noise, the congestion, ie the overall shitshow aka 'the valley'!  these are the things that impact the opportunity for solitude on the el cap 'wilderness' - not the other four parties on the nose...

J Ewrote:

Non climbers seeing fixed anchors is just one small component of the impact. 

I use El Cap as an example because without fixed anchors, it would basically just be a giant pristine cliff with falcons and swifts. Super hardcore climbers would be trying to find likely impossible routes up it. There'd basically be no people. 

The question isn't, can hikers see fixed anchors? The question is, do fixed anchors impact adventurous qualities of climbing, opportunities for solitude, the untrammeled nature of the cliff, etc. (these are words from the Wilderness Act)

The answer is obviously yes.

Does removable protection impact adventurous qualities of climbing, opportunities for solitude, the untrammeled nature of the cliff, etc. (these are words from the Wilderness Act)

The answer is obviously yes.  

old5tenwrote:

oh boy, i'll make this point again, all day long: the climbers and hardware on el cap are not the problem - it's the throngs of people and the infrastructure down below, the trolley with the megaphone, the garbage trucks ratting containers, the pollution, the noise, the congestion, ie the overall shitshow aka 'the valley'!  these are the things that impact the opportunity for solitude on the el cap 'wilderness' - not the other four parties on the nose...

Which is, again, not wilderness.

This is something of a diversion, but people have mentioned in places that the giant imaginary line of "wilderness" and "not wilderness" is capricious and confusing. I've come to think that the wilderness act in it's entirety is actually the wrong way of going about things. It fits nicely into the mid-century trend of seeking to preserve things, especially things that we perceive as natural and unblemished. But really what we end up preserving is a very specific vision from a very specific time period, and it usually ends up being around 1890. This is true of "untrammeled" wilderness (that allows for "historical" cattle grazing and pack animals), it's true of heirloom vegetables and plants, and it's true about the way we look at "artisan" manufacturing. It sound's like we are protecting something that has always existed but really it's this narrow slice of predominantly white colonial history.

I had a chance to listen and talk with some Chochenyo Ohlone and what struck me was a fundamentally different idea of the relationship between the land and people. The land is there to be used, enjoyed, shaped, respected, learned from, and much more. It wasn't about this just completely leaving nature and it certainly wasn't about anything goes if we don't call it nature... and I guess I wish we would be having discussions about responsible and sustainable use and enjoyment in each individual context in a changing world rather than litigating about what someone thought an "installation" was and wasn't 50 years ago.

This whole thing makes me sad, but I made my (hopefully thoughtful) public comment and you should too before it closes, regardless of what exact outcome you would like to see.

Spopepro O.wrote:

Which is, again, not wilderness.

This is something of a diversion, but people have mentioned in places that the giant imaginary line of "wilderness" and "not wilderness" is capricious and confusing. I've come to think that the wilderness act in it's entirety is actually the wrong way of going about things. It fits nicely into the mid-century trend of seeking to preserve things, especially things that we perceive as natural and unblemished. But really what we end up preserving is a very specific vision from a very specific time period, and it usually ends up being around 1890. This is true of "untrammeled" wilderness (that allows for "historical" cattle grazing and pack animals), it's true of heirloom vegetables and plants, and it's true about the way we look at "artisan" manufacturing. It sound's like we are protecting something that has always existed but really it's this narrow slice of predominantly white colonial history.

I had a chance to listen and talk with some Chochenyo Ohlone and what struck me was a fundamentally different idea of the relationship between the land and people. The land is there to be used, enjoyed, shaped, respected, learned from, and much more. It wasn't about this just completely leaving nature and it certainly wasn't about anything goes if we don't call it nature... and I guess I wish we would be having discussions about responsible and sustainable use and enjoyment in each individual context in a changing world rather than litigating about what someone thought an "installation" was and wasn't 50 years ago.

This whole thing makes me sad, but I made my (hopefully thoughtful) public comment and you should too before it closes, regardless of what exact outcome you would like to see.

my point was made in response to impact on wilderness.  it doesn't matter that the valley floor is not wilderness, the mess that happens down there definitely impacts the 'wilderness' experience of those climbing on el cap, in 'wilderness.'

Look at obscure walls in Yosemite with less fixed gear, and tell me that aren't more wild than El cap. 

Let me reiterate, I think the Wilderness act is silly despite the good it did. The points you all are making suggest that many of you think aspects of the Wilderness act are stupid. The Access Fund is saying the wilderness act is bad in this case, while saying they love it in their next breath. 

I'm not talking about what makes sense intuitively. I'm talking about what the Wilderness Act says. 

You all keep switching between common sense (the case of El Cap), and the law (installations!!! Ahhhh! Nowhere does it say fixed anchors on the act!! Ahhh!). 

Spopepro makes good points about the Wilderness Act..

All this worrying, fussing, and theorizing is pointless.  The Department of Interior (BLM, USFS, etc) and the National Park Service don't have the budget or manpower to even remotely enforce these rules.  The idea that the government is going to muster up a posse and charge into the wilderness and start stripping bolts and anchors off rocks is ludicrous. They might try to make an example of a couple high vis routes or nail one or two people here or there, but most people will quickly see the rules are toothless and continue on with the status quo.  

An existing example of this is the all the ATV's, side-by-sides, and 4x4's that totally ignore motorized vehicle restrictions on public lands across the western states, and the government doesn't even begin to try reigning in that scourge.

It's really disheartening seeing climbers oppose the Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act. This Act represents an opportunity for us to etch a 'right to climb' into American law. It ensures we're able to safely descend routes in wilderness areas that don't have a walk-off. The Act has bipartisan support and represents the next big step for our sport becoming further recognized as a legitimate protected activity. The proposed FS and NPS guidelines would widely open the door for these agencies to further restrict and control climbing activities. Please comment in support of PARC and oppose these proposed guidelines by the January 30th deadline.

Follow this link to the Access Fund page for instruction on how to leave feedback on these proposals: accessfund.org/action-alert…

Eric Stonewrote:

It's really disheartening seeing climbers oppose the Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act.

I disagree; I think it shows great integrity that each person is figuring out their position independently and discussing it in public. Yes, lock step accepting an absolute position might be advantageous politically, but I think it’s a dead end that only results in extremism (see 2A issues).

That said, it’s unclear the exact interaction between that act and the FS proposal (two different rule making paths), the FS authority if the Chevron defense is struck, and who exactly gets to interpret the wilderness act going forward. Personally, I wrote my rep in support and she let me know she will vote yes if the PARC act hits the floor.