Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

Spopepro O.wrote:

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).

You can bet yer sweet arse that kind of lockstep approach is being used by Wilderness Watch to achieve their extremist position, while the climbing community wanders around with a bunch of ‘independent’ views that can be easily mowed down by those extremists. But hey…you got to express your precious, individual view, didn’t you?

Ģnöfudør Ðrænkwrote:

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.

i want to agree with this, but the reality is that the blm and forest service have both been spending time and money cataloging and mapping climbing areas for several years.  presumably the nps is doing the same.  i chatted with one of the 'climbing rangers' in pine creek canyon, ca a couple of years ago.  he was methodically visiting each climbing area in the entire canyon over the course of a couple of weeks, gathering information with his tablet.  he said he was collecting the information for inyo nfs.  presumably this information will ultimately look like this and include detailed route, anchor, and bolt counts:

  blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files…

this information will be used as a platform for whatever these government agencies have in store for us.  it's not going to be a posse that will mess with bolts, it will be other climbers....

old5tenwrote:

i want to agree with this, but the reality is that the blm and forest service have both been spending time and money cataloging and mapping climbing areas for several years.  presumably the nps is doing the same.  i chatted with one of the 'climbing rangers' in pine creek canyon, ca a couple of years ago.  he was methodically visiting each climbing area in the entire canyon over the course of a couple of weeks, gathering information with his tablet.  he said he was collecting the information for inyo nfs.  presumably this information will ultimately look like this and include detailed route, anchor, and bolt counts:

  blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files…

this information will be used as a platform for whatever these government agencies have in store for us.  it's not going to be a posse that will mess with bolts, it will be other climbers....

So they got one guy documenting one area.  That just shows how pathetic and ineffective the government will be in this process.  The government having to repeat the process will for ALL climbing areas is just laughable and will take forever. 

Ģnöfudør Ðrænkwrote:

So they got one guy documenting one area.  That just shows how pathetic and ineffective the government will be in this process.  The government having to repeat the process will for ALL climbing areas is just laughable and will take forever. 

Forever? Based on some data you have but have not shared? 

You know there is one guy cataloguing the nation? Or you just believe that?

If we’re just talking belief’s here, I suspect most USFS wildernesses are adequately staffed to do such cataloguing in a few seasons while performing other duties out in the field. That may be optimistic. But certainly not forever.

Not trying to be alarmist. And cataloguing needs be on their near term to-do list given the guidelines will not be in the “proposed” state for long. 

Spopepro O.wrote:

…the FS authority if the Chevron defense is struck, and who exactly gets to interpret the wilderness act going forward. 

Right? If the Chevron Doctrine is struck down by the Supreme Court the agencies might not even have the authority to interpret the wilderness act in a nuanced way.  A federal judge would decide the issue and that would be that.  

Scary stuff. 

Ģnöfudør Ðrænkwrote:

So they got one guy documenting one area.  That just shows how pathetic and ineffective the government will be in this process.  The government having to repeat the process will for ALL climbing areas is just laughable and will take forever. 

Sorry. This is nonsensical wishful thinking. While it won't be heavily enforced ( or maybe not enforced at all) in some areas, in others the opposite will be true. There are some rangers and administrators who are openly hostile to climbing and will prioritize such enforcement in their areas--some of them among the best and most important climbing areas in the country.

It is the height of foolishness to just acquiesce to the adoption of such potentially impactful regulations because you assume that they won't be enforced.

Don't know where you live and climb, but to take the example of Pine Creek mentioned above. It is a wonderful and popular area for many who climb on the Sierra east side, with numerous crags containing many routes--both trad and sport. Why is the FS creating the data base described in the earlier post? It is exceedingly unlikely that they are doing so 'just because'. It is equally unlikely that they are doing so because they are looking for ways to make the area more attractive to the climbing community. It is also notable that the climbing in Pine Creek ( at least most of it ) is not in designated Wilderness.  But look at the FS policy proposal---it would allow forest administrators to eliminate or restrict future new route development---of any kind, even in non-wilderness areas under their supervision. Is that the how you want the future of climbing progress to be determined---by bureaucrats in offices, not by climbers? Well, that looks like what the future holds for Pine Creek ( possibly also the removal of some existing routes) if these regulations are adopted. Probably you don't climb there and never will, so don't care, but for those for whom it is a favorite local area or someplace they like to visit on occasion or might do so some day, this would be a very depressing outcome.

Spopepro O.wrote:

I've come to think that the wilderness act in it's entirety is actually the wrong way of going about things. … 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. …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.

I wish that too. And I know you labeled your post more as a diversion. Still, not everyone plays nice with the next generation.

A couple relevant trends come to mind:  population size compared to 100 or more years ago and unbridled desire (more a constant than a trend?).  Every now and then, I look for a spot in my neighborhood where I can get an unobstructed picture of the very nearby Sandia Mountains. It is near impossible. And, yeah, the frequency that  we cross the line in adding another bolt will only increase unless a good informed process is put in place.

It pleases me that there are reserved areas where the next multi-millionaire can’t build their first mansion with a view.

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).

You can bet yer sweet arse that kind of lockstep approach is being used by Wilderness Watch to achieve their extremist position, while the climbing community wanders around with a bunch of ‘independent’ views that can be easily mowed down by those extremists. But hey…you got to express your precious, individual view, didn’t you?

Wow, if ever a follow up post "underscored the point" its this one.

Ģnöfudør Ðrænkwrote:

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.

Similar to enforcing traffic laws and many other misdemeanor and minor felonies,  not much is done these days anywhere in the country.  I do understand and agree with what Alan just said though,  certain land managers will be fully loaded if this goes through. 

We've all seen how ugly local bolt wars have been,  I can't even imagine how this could play out if even one classic line is closed.

I also keep thinking about  how Shawn Snyders actions in Jtree having a lot to do with this. This whole thing may not even be an issue if we as climbers policed ourselves  better, something to keep in mind.

Bill Lawrywrote:

It pleases me that there are reserved areas where the next multi-millionaire can’t build their first mansion with a view.

Don't take that land for granted Bill, just look over the state line to Utah where pristine public land gets McMansioned, drilled and blasted .  When I lived outside of Albuquerque in the mid 90s there was lots of talk of lack of water and the end of growth because of that. Rio Rancho was going to be it, now look at the sprawl...

Burning my third and so enforced-last post for the day here.

It may be true that a lock-step WW has that advantage over the diverse / divided set that climbers represent.

But climbers going extreme in response is a losing proposition. WW and the like have an advantage with that outcome since those on the sidelines who don’t climb will see wisdom in embracing WW and the like:  preserve for now and if we go too far we can always back up during the next generation.

Hoping in the future for climbers that will play the long game and seek to collaborate with land managers of wildernesses+.   And that comments on these proposals tend to be based on that vision. Mainly, I’m thinking of comments that aim for that future collaboration.

M Mwrote:

I also keep thinking about  how Shawn Snyders actions in Jtree having a lot to do with this. This whole thing may not even be an issue if we as climbers policed ourselves  better, something to keep in mind.

I'd bet it was more the actions of Todd Gordon -bolting generic slab routes on every 30' boulder in the whole Joshua Tree wilderness with a power drill- that have a lot to do with this.  Or Gluey Louis, ushering in a whole new level of Forest Service oversight by manufacturing holds AND ignoring the warnings of long-time locals telling him to knock it off.  Hell Shawn Snyder was probably just working for the NPS, except the bolts he chopped got replaced through an MRA.  Ironic.

Andrea Compton wrote:

Right? If the Chevron Doctrine is struck down by the Supreme Court the agencies might not even have the authority to interpret the wilderness act in a nuanced way.  A federal judge would decide the issue and that would be that.  

Scary stuff.

It might actually be a better outcome for climbers if a federal judge clarified the definition of an installation.  

Ģnöfudør Ðrænkwrote:

The government having to repeat the process will for ALL climbing areas is just laughable and will take forever. 

Gosh if there was only some company that's merging mapping software with a giant database for rock climbs the government could just procure. 

Long Rangerwrote:

Gosh if there was only some company that's merging mapping software with a giant database for rock climbs the government could just procure. 

Why bother? They could just browse feely instead of going through procurement.

Dan Dwrote:

Why bother? They could just browse feely instead of going through procurement.

Because the real useful data on this site is locked up and onX can sell access to the APIs. onX knows which climbs are in Wilderness, and how popular each one is . They can make it easy for someone to search for, "bolt" on any of the route description. They can make it pretty easy for just one guy per area to do the on-the-ground stuff.

Strava does something similar with cycling data. A town can go to them and ask what the most popular cycling routes are and when they're ridden (for example). I'm sure Boulder  could do something similar with their hiking data. Like: hmm, sure are a lot of people hiking this one route that don't got no trail on it - probably should investigate...

apogeewrote:

You can bet yer sweet arse that kind of lockstep approach is being used by Wilderness Watch to achieve their extremist position, while the climbing community wanders around with a bunch of ‘independent’ views that can be easily mowed down by those extremists. But hey…you got to express your precious, individual view, didn’t you?

Bingo, the fact that climbers are turning what should be unified opposition to this proposal into a reason to debate trad vs sport or who should be allowed to place a bolt shows that we as a community don't see the big picture. Having the federal government decide whether or not a bolt should be placed, whether or not rappel anchors should exist, whether or not historic routes should exist should sound the alarms for all climbers. To think that the government cares about our sport is naive. Look at base jumping as a sport, completely banned in national parks. This is not the time to quibble about ethics.

The sense of individualism that has long been a central part of climber's identities serves one well while establishing an FA on some remote wall on Baffin Island, but has never worked well in the 'real world' of politics. The time is now for the climbing community to become savvy about how policy and legislation works, and to influence it using effective tools and strategies.

One great advantage the climbing community has right now is sheer numbers (like it or not)- there is the potential to have a far stronger voice than we've ever had before, if people can step up and learn, stop quibbling about minor, irrelevant aspects, and speak with a clear, unified voice on this important issue. Again: don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

What if I only use my removable bolts?   

apogeewrote:

The sense of individualism that has long been a central part of climber's identities serves one well while establishing an FA on some remote wall on Baffin Island, but has never worked well in the 'real world' of politics. The time is now for the climbing community to become savvy about how policy and legislation works, and to influence it using effective tools and strategies.

One great advantage the climbing community has right now is sheer numbers (like it or not)- there is the potential to have a far stronger voice than we've ever had before, if people can step up and learn, stop quibbling about minor, irrelevant aspects, and speak with a clear, unified voice on this important issue. Again: don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

Unfortunately, those sheer numbers are the problem, especially when so many of them think the solution is to grid bolt even more to 'alleviate the crowding'.

I got major shit for criticizing rap-bolted climbs where not a single bolt was clipped when I led them with gear. This "inclusive climbing community" is going to get what they deserve sooner or later. 

Yeah, can't wait to have climbing opportunities officially reduced to bushwhack corner systems that max out at 5.10. That will show those pesky sport climbers who runs the roost.

I have criticisms about a growing population that demands all climbs be sanitized from risk, but right now we need to focus on the fundamental implications surrounding "fixed anchors"—not just bolts. If more of you had heard the off-the-record conversations that I've been privy to, you would be more concerned too. A few individuals with influence appear to be driving these anti-climber policies. And guess what, there are way more voters who don't climb and are susceptible to believing the misinformation. They see roadside crags and are led to believe that is what the wilderness crags will look like.

With all the nit-picking, people seem to be overlooking this point, which I highlighted in my Jan. 12 article:

These mandated MRAs would be “a very subjective process carried out by land managers who may not climb,” Keith said.

The wording of the proposals would have land managers consider: is this route similar to the one next to it? What is the minimum number of anchors necessary for an appropriate rock climbing experience? If there is one route to the top of a cliff, why must climbers have multiple routes that ultimately take them to the same place?

Please comment—kindly and respectfully—by Jan. 30 to support the sixty years of precedence for managing climbing in Wilderness. Let's secure our legal standing first, then work together to address the competing interests of climbing styles.

https://www.accessfund.org/action-alerts/stop-the-bolt-prohibition

—Derek Franz