The NPS and USFS proposal IS a ban on sport climbing

I know we already have enough forum post about the draft proposals to limit the placements of permanent anchors, but I wanted to call to attention specific language in the draft proposal that can easily be interpreted as a complete ban of sport climbing.  On page 3 of the proposal under the background the document states “the establishment of bolt-intensive face climbs is considered incompatible with wilderness preservation.”   This language is stated again on step 2 of the MRA process on page 7.  What does this mean, clearly they will outright reject any proposals to add sport climbs.  

Now I know that this is going to devolve into a trad vs sport argument but I think it's ridiculous that we cannot come together as a community to try to protect our access to the sport.  The fact is that the status quo is working quite well and local ethics are responsibly adhered to by route developers, snake dike doesn't have lots of bolts and there are not clip ups every in places where that is not the ethic.  The whole policy reads like it was written by a sad lonely trad dad that is working to get sport climbing taken away from people who can  climb much harder than him just so they can remain relevant.  For the record I love all forms of climbing but the fact is there is lots of good rock climbing that cannot be protected by gear and I don't want to be limited to the few climbs that do take gear unlike these trad dads who are happy to climb the same 5.9+ for the rest of their life.  

I am resubmitting my comment to the NPS and USFS to let them know that there stance on face climbs is completely unjustified and I hope we can come together to protect all climbing

What is meant by “wilderness”?  The wilderness act of 1964 defines wilderness as an area “untrammeled by man”. Yosemite Valley is very much “trammeled” by man. It’s literally a small but crowded tourist town. And they’re worried about little bolts that are never going to be seen by 99.9% of the visitors?  

Here is my comment for the NPS reflecting my disapproval for their draft language: 

I want to express my appreciation for the NPS's acknowledgment in the draft proposal that Director’s Order 41 §7.2 affirms climbing as a legitimate and appropriate use of wilderness. Recognizing that "the occasional placement of a fixed anchor for belay, rappel, or protection purposes does not necessarily impair the future enjoyment of wilderness or violate the Wilderness Act" is a crucial step in acknowledging the historical context and importance of climbing in these areas.

However, I wish to bring attention to the subsequent statement in the proposal, particularly the assertion that "the establishment of bolt-intensive face climbs is considered incompatible with wilderness preservation." While it is commendable that Director’s Order 41 §7.2 emphasizes that fixed anchors or fixed equipment should be rare in wilderness and that “clean climbing” techniques should be the norm in wilderness,” it is essential to recognize that certain rock formations, such as pocketed limestone and featured granite do not have incipient cracks which allow for protection via gear such as camming devices, nuts or other clean protection.  These rock formations require the use of bolts for protection.  From the language of the draft proposal, it is clear that MRA proposals to develop “sport climbs” would be rejected.  This is a complete change in how the wilderness act has been interpreted and would severely limit the climbing potential for US rock climbers.

It is crucial to strike a balance that allows for the preservation of wilderness areas while acknowledging the unique characteristics of different climbing styles and ensuring continued access for all climbers. The current NPS draft proposal as written falls short and I encourage the NPS to reconsider the absolute restriction on sport climbing, taking into account the diversity of climbing practices and adopting a nuanced approach that aligns with the principles of wilderness preservation and responsible climbing.  It is important to acknowledge instances where route developers have successfully implemented such principles. For instance, in places like Yosemite and Joshua Tree, developers have demonstrated a commitment to preserving the natural character of the rock and limiting the placement of bolts on face climbs. There is a notable absence of "grid bolted" sport climbs in these parks, showcasing a responsible and thoughtful approach to route development.

Yosemite's Snake Dike (5.7 R) serves as a prime example of this ethos in action. Despite ongoing debates about the safety of certain pitches due to runouts, the route has not been retro-bolted to address these concerns. This decision reflects a commitment to preserving the ethics of the first ascensionists and respecting the historical context of the climb. Highlighting such examples is crucial to illustrating that a balanced and responsible approach to route development is not only possible but has already been successfully implemented in some of the most iconic climbing areas.

As we consider climbing management directives, I encourage the NPS to recognize and promote these positive examples, fostering a culture of responsible bolting that respects the unique characteristics of each climbing area.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Jose Gutierrez

Shale oil is making a massive comeback, and the government is worried about bolts. 

Chris Cwrote:

Shale oil is making a massive comeback, and the government is worried about bolts. 

Yeah because the access fund hasn’t established a super pac yet

Jose Gutierrezwrote:

The whole policy reads like it was written by a sad lonely trad dad that is working to get sport climbing taken away from people who can climb much harder than him just so they can remain relevant.

Jose, your comment is assumptive and one of ignorance. I have worked with and climbed with some of the people who have been involved with this rule making. Many, myself included have been involved for over 30 years, well before you started climbing. The complexities are many. As such, you should learn to temper your hyperbolic comments. And for the record, one of people involved is a woman who has climbed sport routes well in to the 12s. 

That said, your comment letter is good but could use some additional work as the issue is not about banning sport climbing per say. It is in part about what is and is not appropriate in wilderness. Note the following: Section 2(c) of the Wilderness Act defines wilderness in part as a place that “has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation”. However, what the authors of the Wilderness Act specifically meant by solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation is not in the legislative history. Therein lies part of the issue as it can be argued that bolt intensive climbs are not a primitive and unconfined type of recreation.

Am I in the minority in thinking its a reasonable stance to decide bolt lines don't (never did) belong in Congressionally Designated Wilderness? 

Per the proposed language, in Wilderness Areas, bolted anchors are one thing to consider and sport climbs are another.  I agree.

This doc from the Montana State legislature states that less than 3% of land in the lower 48 is designated and protected as Wilderness.

To put numbers to this- the lower 48 is approx 3.12 million sq miles.  So about 100,000 sqmi is under protection as Wilderness, while 3,000,000 remains unprotected. A sqmi is 640 acres.  I'm OK with NEW sport climbs being restricted to other 97% if it helps preserve or even improve the 3% of remaining land meant to be less impacted by human development.  

Jose Gutierrezwrote:

I know we already have enough forum post about the draft proposals to limit the placements of permanent anchors…

You shoulda stopped right there…

Actually reading the USFS proposal, it doesn’t sound unreasonable.

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

Am I in the minority in thinking its a reasonable stance to decide bolt lines don't (never did) belong in Congressionally Designated Wilderness? 

Per the proposed language, in Wilderness Areas, bolted anchors are one thing to consider and sport climbs are another.  I agree.

  

No, you're reading and interpreting it with your priorities and ideas. It doesn't say sport climbs, and it doesn't say bolt lines. It says "bolt intensive climbs" and remember that when they say anchor they just mean bolt or other permanent hardware (this is clear in the definitions). It would be hard for me to believe that a non-climber land manager wouldn't classify Epinephrine as a bolt intensive climb in a wilderness area. It would then be up to climbers to try and argue they are the "minimum necessary for administration" and doesn't "concentrate human activity" in a single area. I think it's really important people remember not to interpret statute language with climber meanings.

Y’all read too much. People are still going to chop and bolt as they choose. Illegally or not. 

Jose Gutierrezwrote:

The whole policy reads like it was written by a sad lonely trad dad that is working to get sport climbing taken away from people who can  climb much harder than him just so they can remain relevant.  For the record I love all forms of climbing but the fact is there is lots of good rock climbing that cannot be protected by gear and I don't want to be limited to the few climbs that do take gear unlike these trad dads who are happy to climb the same 5.9+ for the rest of their life.  

Not only is this ignorant, biased, and stupid, but if you think you are going to get the climbing community to "come together" by heaping scorn on what could be one of the largest demographics, then you either have a profound disconnection from the reality of advocacy or a deep abiding hypocrisy about actual unification.

Looks like I touched a nerve.  I will concede that my characterization of the authors was inflammatory but that is because reading the NPS proposal it is clear that it was written with climber input.  To your point Allen while I will concede this issue is incredibly complex and I am sure some concession needed to be made to the crowd that would readily want to ban climbing entirety, the impression that I get from the draft proposal is that the climbers who had input in this process were not working in good faith to preserve access for all forms of climbing.  In fact I would go as far to say that reading between the lines of the proposal it appears that a minority of climbers are taking this opportunity to take climbing access away from forms of climbing (sport climbing) that they do not view as legitimate.  If this is indeed the case then it appears that climbing access is likely to be jeopardized because someone has it out for “tightly bolted face climbs” that are “considered incompatible with wilderness preservation and management”.  

My stance on the proposal is that I wholeheartedly reject all aspects of the proposal.  I do believe this is a wake up call for the broader climbing community to be better actors in the wilderness, but I do not want to see opaque bureaucratic government oversight process dictating what forms of climbing are acceptable.  

Jose Gutierrezwrote:

In fact I would go as far to say that reading between the lines of the proposal it appears that a minority of climbers are taking this opportunity to take climbing access away from forms of climbing (sport climbing) that they do not view as legitimate.  If this is indeed the case then it appears that climbing access is likely to be jeopardized because someone has it out for “tightly bolted face climbs” that are “considered incompatible with wilderness preservation and management”.  

Any response to my point that you're objecting to a proposal that would reserve less than 3% of land to be protected?   Climbs that are ONLY possible through the use of many bolts would remain boundless in the rest of the 97% of the lower 48.  

I think we should really be talking about what should and shouldn't be designated protected Wilderness.  I am all for establishing places in this country where nothing man-made exists beyond a foot trail akin to a game trail or hunting trail in existence since time immemorial.  Even walking bridges could go.  

Though that last bit seems a similarly unwise and unreasonable safety tradeoff to banning bolted anchors.  Something I expressed my strong objection to in formal comment.

I favor the model that is used on the Olympic Penninsula with regards to designated Wilderness.  You basically have to drive several miles down a dirt road and then walk several more miles before you are in a Wilderness Area.  If you're willing to make that effort you are rewarded with real wilderness with only the trail to remind you that the world exists.  And the occasional sound of sorties flying out of Whidbey. But that's another topic.  

Meanwhile there are portions of the Alpine Lakes Wilderness where one could hit a golf ball onto a 4 lane highway.  How are we pretending that's wilderness?  I suppose to your point about opposing the entire proposal- I could see the argument that until we take a close look at what is currently designated as Wilderness its improper to add any additional restrictions.

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

Any response to my point that you're objecting to a proposal that would reserve less than 3% of land to be protected?  

That 3% has a disproportionate amount of the rock climbing. Most of Yosemite is wilderness. Much of Red Rocks is wilderness. Zion, JTree, the Black canyon, RMNP.  Climbers are not okay with giving up that 3%. None of these are “sport” destinations but good luck explaining the nuance to an uninterested bureaucrat.

This isn’t about redrawing lines of wilderness boundaries to fit the untouched backcountry ideal you have in mind. It’s about giving up our ability to place and replace ANY bolts without a backlogged, paperwork laden hassle that hinges on the approval of some non-climber park supervisor. What if they have a grudge against climbers? It wouldn’t be the first time. We as a community can banter all day about how many bolts should go where and which places should be runout and which can have more bolts, and I’ll probably align with you on some of those points, but let’s agree that we’re better off without some arduous, unfunded permitting system that takes months just to get a rusting time bomb bolt replaced.

Andy with regards to your comment about the 3% my stance aligns with what Skyler just articulated.  Additionally most sport climbing in this 3% is within a mile of a paved road which I would hardly consider "wilderness", to that point I don't see sport climbing currently as problematic to the "untrammeled" wilderness.  The fact is most climbs that are are in the true wilderness backcountry use a reasonable amount of protection.  I don't think we need any government agency to be approving what access is or isn't allowed.  My understanding of this draft policy is that a classic such as  Dreaming of Wild Turkeys which has some pitches of bolted face climbing would be then be subject to a bureaucrats interpretations what constitutes "tightly bolted" or not and could therefore be deemed illegal. 

In my dream scenario climbers would not need the PARC act and that we would continue on with the status quo.  I do not think congress should be wading into this issue, but if this draft proposal passes then I would support the PARC act to reverse this devastating policy.

Jose Gutierrezwrote:

I know we already have enough forum post about the draft proposals to limit the placements of permanent anchors, but I wanted to call to attention specific language in the draft proposal that can easily be interpreted as a complete ban of sport climbing.  On page 3 of the proposal under the background the document states “the establishment of bolt-intensive face climbs is considered incompatible with wilderness preservation.”   This language is stated again on step 2 of the MRA process on page 7.  What does this mean, clearly they will outright reject any proposals to add sport climbs.  

Now I know that this is going to devolve into a trad vs sport argument but I think it's ridiculous that we cannot come together as a community to try to protect our access to the sport.  The fact is that the status quo is working quite well and local ethics are responsibly adhered to by route developers, snake dike doesn't have lots of bolts and there are not clip ups every in places where that is not the ethic.  The whole policy reads like it was written by a sad lonely trad dad that is working to get sport climbing taken away from people who can  climb much harder than him just so they can remain relevant.  For the record I love all forms of climbing but the fact is there is lots of good rock climbing that cannot be protected by gear and I don't want to be limited to the few climbs that do take gear unlike these trad dads who are happy to climb the same 5.9+ for the rest of their life.  

I am resubmitting my comment to the NPS and USFS to let them know that there stance on face climbs is completely unjustified and I hope we can come together to protect all climbing

God bless the NPS!

Tradibanwrote:

God bless the NPS!

Yes!!! We can breath a sigh if relief!!!

Charlie Kissickwrote:

What is meant by “wilderness”?  The wilderness act of 1964 defines wilderness as an area “untrammeled by man”. Yosemite Valley is very much “trammeled” by man. It’s literally a small but crowded tourist town. And they’re worried about little bolts that are never going to be seen by 99.9% of the visitors?  

It's what's designated wilderness. It doesn't matter if it's really wilderness at all.

I agree with many replies above. The OP is inflammatory and counter productive. Delete or seriously edit and stick to facts, user value, significant vs. no significant impacts. 

I've written my letters to oppose this. Mainly because it's a blanket rule that makes not sense in many areas. It comes down to case by case decisions and the proposal prevents that.

Gloweringwrote:

It's what's designated wilderness. It doesn't matter if it's really wilderness at all.

Is there any "sport area" inside a "designated wilderness area" that would actually be lost if the proposal goes into effect? 

Or maybe our (the climbing community's) existing ethics rules have kept sport bolting out of wilderness even before this proposal was presented? 

Is this proposal basically just putting our ethics rules into writing (plus a bunch of paperwork added in an attempt to prevent bolting wars)?

Andy Shoemaker wrote: To put numbers to this- the lower 48 is approx 3.12 million sq miles. So about 100,000 sqmi is under protection as Wilderness, while 3,000,000 remains unprotected. A sqmi is 640 acres. I'm OK with NEW sport climbs being restricted to other 97% if it helps preserve or even improve the 3% of remaining land meant to be less impacted by human development.

How much of this 97% is private land that no one of us have access to?

Patrikwrote:

Is there any "sport area" inside a "designated wilderness area" that would actually be lost if the proposal goes into effect? 

Or maybe our (the climbing community's) existing ethics rules have kept sport bolting out of wilderness even before this proposal was presented? 

Is this proposal basically just putting our ethics rules into writing (plus a bunch of paperwork added in an attempt to prevent bolting wars)?

First, It is crucial to understand that these regulations don't effect only 'sport climbing' areas or even only 'bolts', but under them, all fixed anchors, including rap slings around a chockstone, for example, are considered to be installations. So, as has been noted repeatedly in these threads,El Cap and other Yosemite walls, Joshua Tree, and many other 'traditional' areas would be covered. But, as far as your specific question, yes, there are a number of actual sport crags within Wilderness boundaries. Some examples that I can think of off the top of my head are numerous formations on Mt. Lemmon in Tucson and the areas in the Superstition Mts. near Phoenix.