The NPS and USFS proposal IS a ban on sport climbing

In Yosemite it's not the climbing areas that are trashy. There are use paths, a few stacked rocks, slings and anchors if you know where to look. But it's not "blown up" or trashed. Go look at the picnic and camp grounds or parking lots if you want to see overuse. The most glaring anthropogenic impact is dead, downed and burnt trees. Still, when I look up and around I get the feeling Yosemite will far outlast us. 

Patrikwrote:

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

The best example I can give is much of American Fork Canyon where the wilderness boundary is 200 feet from the roadway. A large number of the routes are within the Lone Peak Wilderness.

For what it is worth, the new policies would indeed "ban" sport climbing in designated Wilderness. That's not hyperbole. That idea has been in place for over a decade, and many parks and forests already have policies banning sport climbs in Wilderness. Also, it seems like many climbers support that ban, although I suspect they don't understand that many places they don't consider Wilderness are in fact in designated Wilderness. 

Most of those policies are not enforced, so there is that. 

The definition of a sport climb, or bolt intensive climb to use their language, is actually probably one of the most important things to figure out in these national policies. 

C L wrote:

Interactive map of wilderness areas in the US

This is actually pretty neat! 

It blows my mind that a bunch of elderly arthritic keyboard warriors haven’t even taken the time to do the bare minimum research on what is designated as wilderness in the US.

Are you new here? 

Chances are that your local climbing area is in jeopardy. 

It’s likely not. Where is the list of major climbing areas that’ll be shut down? I haven’t seen it. 

Very unfortunate that some crusty old people are threading the existence of climbing as we know it, all because they “got theirs” back before power drills were invented.

Agreed

The bolt wars were solved over 30 years ago back when you kooks were still climbing in Lycra. Ethics were established, and lines were chopped if they were seen as unworthy or an eyesore. Climbing is a self governing community that doesn’t need The Man to approve permits for new lines.

Maybe you missed it, but there’s been pretty noticeable bolt wars within the last decade. Off the top of my head alone I can think of Ten Sleep, Pikes Peak, the CT/New England. I’m sure I’m also missing a couple. 

We all know that the government isn’t going to spend the resources to maintain a database of approved bolts. All this act will do is create animosity between climbers and land managers, even if you’re a so-called trad dad. The park ranger doesn’t care if you’re going trad/sport/iced/mixed climbing. They will lump all climbers together and not distinguish between the differences.

Ain’t not park ranger gonna suddenly start to care. People will just start to bolt illegally if they want to develop that badly. Just like the gov‘t isn’t going to spend resources on maintaining a data base they aren’t gonna spend resources policing climbing walls. Ten Sleep is a could be a great example of this I’m some ways; Bolting moratorium went in place, popularity did not decline at all (if anything it increased) and conveniently there is a new guidebook being released that will somenow include hundreds of new routes. 

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.

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.  

Andy –

Your analysis assumes all land has the same climbing potential and clearly it doesn’t.  In addition the amount of land, at least in WA, that has designated wilderness has been increasing over the time I have been climbing in the state.  I think I’ve put up new routes in all these regions before before they were designated at Wilderness (Alpine Lakes was an enlargement): 

Henry Jackson

Boulder River

Wild Sky

Alpine Lakes

In addition to Wilderness Areas Wa has a significant number of National Parks and Federally managed Wildlife Reserves that constrain or outright ban climbing activity.   All told a significant amount of prime climbing areas in Wa are under the control of the Federal Government.  The 97% v 3% argument wouldn’t make sense in WA even if all land was homogenous.  

The State of Washington also manages lands utilized by climbers including State Parks but also Natural Resource Conservation Areas.  NRAs “protect outstanding examples of native ecosystems, habitat for endangered, threatened, and sensitive plants and animal and scenic landscapes.   More than 125,873 acres are conserved in 39 Washington state NRCAs.” (eg Morning Star Mountain) It should be noted that the WA DFW manages some federally owned land as well. ( eg Banks Lakes)

The clear trend is rules and regulations have been more and more restrictive over time.  Perhaps its best to consider proposed regulations as a point along this trendline when considering them.  Some regulations may appear to create your optimal steady state solution but actually may deflect the trendline even steeper and propel us to a place decidedly sub optimal.  

C L wrote:

We all know that the government will not chop bolts or police cliffs. They will, however, begin to view climbers in a negative light, and have legislature to back up those feelings.

Don’t worry, the positive outlook and increase in popularity of climbing due to the Olympics will far outweigh the negatives.

This will lead to parking areas being shut down, permits for trail maintenance being revoked, bans on chalk, "big wall" permits being issued/revoked, entrance numbers to parks being capped... the list goes on. If you think this will lead to a few sport routes being chopped, you are sorely mistaken.

I can see parking areas being shut down, but then again, some of them probably should be shut down. I highly doubt any of the rest will happen though, and if you think climbing in Yosemite and Zion is going to be banned you’re sorely mistaken. Can you honestly imagine a Yosemite without YOSAR?! And again, what existing areas would the proposed “plan” shut down? (genuinely asking)

The fact that a bolting moratorium has even been talked about in Ten Sleep shows that the climbing community is self regulating. You need to look at this situation from the perspective of an incompetent park ranger that knows nothing about climbing.

Based on this reply, I suspect you aren’t really quite aware of what I’m talking about regarding ten sleep. There has been a moratorium in place for literal years due to circumstances that have some parallels.….and based on your previous post it seems you have not really even kept up with recent access and bolting issues either. “Bolting wars“, of sorts, are still very much occurring, it just involves a far less percentage of climbers and is more localized than it was in the 80’s when there was only a handful or climbers and areas people climbed.

This will not end well.

In your eyes, maybe. It depends on what the “end” actual looks like. Not sure anyone has a clue what the actual result will look like…but, sure, let’s continue to try and invoke panic on the internets lol 

Jose Gutierrezwrote:

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. 

The proposal that lists ice screws as fixed equipment was written with climber input? LOL.

Darryl Cramerwrote:

Andy –

Your analysis assumes all land has the same climbing potential and clearly it doesn’t.  In addition the amount of land, at least in WA, that has designated wilderness has been increasing over the time I have been climbing in the state.  I think I’ve put up new routes in all these regions before before they were designated at Wilderness (Alpine Lakes was an enlargement): 

Darryl- thanks for your mindful and informative response.  I concede I did in fact over simplify things.  My point is that it's not unreasonable for some of our wilderness to be free of human development.  

I have expressed my opinion to the feds about my strong opposition to the current proposal.

NOT on the basis that it's unreasonable that we set aside select mountain terrain to be "banned of sport climbing", as the OP puts it. But rather, that it's imperative that a thorough review of land management classification occur first. I specifically suggested that a new category of federal land be considered. And that only land that meets stringent requirements be classified as protected Wilderness. One example- at least X number of miles from an interstate highway.

The majority of the Valley is clearly not Wilderness.  Nor the section of I-90 that abuts the Alpine Lakes Wilderness. Restricting the installation of bolts in these places is problematic and adds little value to the public.

Though, and this is an entirely separate issue to installations in Wilderness, I don't think I'm in the minority (one rarely does) in thinking its in the best interest of the entire climbing community to add SOME level of oversight to the bolts that go into places like the Valley.  Maybe a civilian panel comprised of local coalition climbers in each area, working directly with developers and NPS.

Most of us have seen the chipping thread.  It's not unreasonable to expect that at some point an inexperienced climber, unfamiliar to outdoor ethics, does something stupid with a drill in the Valley.  Like wouldn't it be nice to know that if someone goes up and adds 20 bolts to SD that they'd be looking at hefty fines or potentially sleeping on a cot in a cold room for a few weeks? 

Admittedly, in the past climbers have solved these problems themselves.  But let's look at the trend here. More climbers than ever, who are sometimes both less experienced and more self-entitled than their predecessors.  

C L wrote:

Interactive map of wilderness areas in the US

It blows my mind that a bunch of elderly arthritic keyboard warriors haven’t even taken the time to do the bare minimum research on what is designated as wilderness in the US. Chances are that your local climbing area is in jeopardy. Very unfortunate that some crusty old people are threatening the existence of climbing as we know it, all because they “got theirs” back before power drills were invented.

The bolt wars were solved over 40 years ago, back when you kooks were still climbing in Lycra. Ethics were established, and lines were chopped if they were deemed unworthy or an eyesore. Climbing is a self governing community that doesn’t need The Man to approve permits for new lines.

We all know that the government isn’t going to spend the resources to maintain a database of approved bolts. All this act will do is create animosity between climbers and land managers, even if you’re a so-called trad dad. The park ranger doesn’t care if you’re going trad/sport/iced/mixed climbing. They will lump all climbers together and not distinguish between the differences.

Now is the time to band together, or risk losing access to public lands as we know them.

“…Something something… cutting off your nose to spite your face”

This. If you look at the interactive map, Rumney in New Hampshire is in a designated wilderness area. Rumney is an outdoor gym. I know people who hate it for that reason, but it is probably the premier sport climbing destination in the Northeast.. In any case, a strict application of the proposed rules would make Rumney illegal. So let's not pretend like this is only going to affect places you need a bush piolet and a team of porters to access.  

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

 Not sure anyone has a clue what the actual result will look like…but, sure, let’s continue to try and invoke panic on the internets lol 

So everyone is just panicking? This isn't a great opportunity to engage with the agencies that oversee a lot of climbing land? This isn't a great opportunity to make sure the end result IS one that is advantageous to climbers? 

I must been busy living life because it felt like there was a good 6 week period there that you weren't posting anything, but now it looks like you're back on your troll-y bullshit.

Thanks for the motivation to most definitely submit my comments before the period ends today. You can go back to... whatever it is you do with your copious amounts of free time that allows you to rub shit all over threads like this. 

To everyone else contributing to a constructive discussion, carry on!

Skyler Mavorwrote:

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.

J tree does this right? In anyone's experience is there some sort of backlogged slow process? I've only ever met one person that got permission to bolt but she made it sound like getting a permit was no big deal, I believe she said it was to replace the bolts on an 11d slab near Rubicon but I'm not seeing one on MP. 

Devin Pendaswrote:

This. If you look at the interactive map, Rumney in New Hampshire is in a designated wilderness area. Rumney is an outdoor gym. I know people who hate it for that reason, but it is probably the premier sport climbing destination in the Northeast.. In any case, a strict application of the proposed rules would make Rumney illegal. So let's not pretend like this is only going to affect places you need a bush piolet and a team of porters to access.  

Even with strict application of the rules, climbing would still be 100% kosher at Rumney.
New routing, replacement of hardware, changing/adding of anchor locations, trail building, etc is where things that would "require" working with the man going forward. 

I dont understand how you come to the conclusion climbing would suddenly be illegal in Rumney if this all goes through. 

Adam Rwrote:

J tree does this right? In anyone's experience is there some sort of backlogged slow process? I've only ever met one person that got permission to bolt but she made it sound like getting a permit was no big deal, I believe she said it was to replace the bolts on an 11d slab near Rubicon but I'm not seeing one on MP. 

It might be more accurate to say you're at the mercy of each administrator. I know it's not NFS/BLM/NPS... but an area in Castle Rock State Park in CA has been closed "temporarily" pending environmental review since 1997...

philip bonewrote:

In Yosemite it's not the climbing areas that are trashy. There are use paths, a few stacked rocks, slings and anchors if you know where to look. But it's not "blown up" or trashed. Go look at the picnic and camp grounds or parking lots if you want to see overuse. The most glaring anthropogenic impact is dead, downed and burnt trees. Still, when I look up and around I get the feeling Yosemite will far outlast us. 

LOL...

One of the most memorable sights of Yosemite Valley is noticing the white scar visible on Reeds Direct, from across the way.

Mr Rogerswrote:

Even with strict application of the rules, climbing would still be 100% kosher at Rumney.
New routing, replacement of hardware, changing/adding of anchor locations, trail building, etc is where things that would "require" working with the man going forward. 

I dont understand how you come to the conclusion climbing would suddenly be illegal in Rumney if this all goes through. 

bolts don't last forever. that said, I don't think rumney is wilderness

Thanks to those who have commented opposing these regulations! My comments are below. There are still a few hours left to comment! Even a short comment opposing these impermissible and ill-conceived regulations is better than nothing!

***

I am an avid rock, snow, and ice climber, and I appreciate that the NPS’s (“Agency”) draft regulations regarding fixed anchors in Congressionally designated Wilderness acknowledge climbing as a legitimate use of Wilderness. I’ve certainly found that to be the case. From summiting Pingora in the Bridger Wilderness in early morning alpenglow, to clawing my way to the rim of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison with dry, cracked lips and fingertips, Wilderness has been the venue for some of my most profound life experiences.

Common to all of those Wilderness climbing experiences is that each fulfilled the aims of the Wilderness Act. On all of my Wilderness climbing outings, I engaged in primitive and unconfined recreation, I left next to no impact, and experienced the kind of self-reliance that is near impossible to find in other settings. Also common to all of my Wilderness climbing experiences, is that every single one depended on fixed anchors/equipment, whether left by those before me—be it a modern bolt, a fixed sling, or a rusty piton predating the Wilderness Act itself—or those placed by me. The Agency’s draft regulations—which render all of those pieces of fixed equipment prohibited by default—raise the question of whether I will ever be able to (legally) experience anything like those prior outings ever again. Thus, while I strongly support protecting designated Wilderness to ensure that there remain areas relatively untouched by humans for generations to come, I strongly oppose the Agency’s draft regulations.

My opposition isn’t just based on my own self-interest. I oppose the Agency’s draft regulations because they are based on an interpretation of the Wilderness Act that is impermissibly broad, and because the draft regulations contemplate a regulatory regime that is unenforceable, hopelessly ambiguous, and unfunded. The Agency’s draft regulations will thus inevitably result in arbitrary and capricious action and should be rejected outright. Short of that, the Agency must revise the regulations to provide those on the ground with clear timelines for the evaluation of existing and future/proposed fixed anchors and to clearly define now-ambiguous phrases like “bolt intensive.”

To start, the Agency’s definition of “installation” is impermissibly broad. Fixed climbing equipment is nothing like the other items the Wilderness Act explicitly prohibits, and it is absurd to think that Congress intended the word “installation” to cover fixed climbing equipment. In fact, as former Senator Udall has explained, the record is clear that those who actually voted to create designated Wilderness never intended that designation to prohibit the use of fixed climbing equipment. Plus, countless pieces of fixed equipment existed in countless Wilderness areas pre-designation. It is hard to see how those pre-existing pieces of fixed equipment weren’t an impediment enough to prevent an area’s initial designation, but are now significant enough to detract from wilderness character. The arbitrary overbreadth of the Agency’s definition of installation is further illustrated by the fact that it logically encompasses all manner of other human impacts that the Agency has taken no steps to prohibit. Hiker-created footpaths (i.e. off-trail travel), hiker-created river crossings (via log or stone), windbreaks, heck, even micro-plastics from modern outerwear are all man-made and left behind by the installer after they leave wilderness. Thus, under the Agency’s unlawful definition of installation, each of these should be prohibited unless allowed through the MRA process. Of course, it would be absurd to think that drafters of the Wilderness Act meant to prohibit these items from Wilderness when they decided to prohibit “other installations.” The only conclusion, then, is that the Agency’s definition of installation is itself absurd and should be revised to comply with the actual intent of the Wilderness Act. Properly considered, fixed climbing equipment is not an “other installation.”

Now, I understand that the response to at least some of my concerns is that the Agency’s regulations do not outright foreclose the use of fixed equipment. Instead, fixed equipment may be permitted if justified by an MRA. But the reality of the Agency’s regulations is that they leave key terms/concepts undefined, provide no firm deadline for review of existing or proposed fixed anchors, and issue an unfunded mandate to Agency staff that is overworked and underpaid. Once again, the Agency’s regulations seem destined for arbitrary and capricious Agency action. Therefore, the Agency should—at bare minimum—revise its draft regulations to:

•    Define the concept of “bolt intensive.” The definition could categorize routes/pitches with a certain number of pieces of fixed equipment as bolt intensive. For example, “bolt intensive” could mean pitches with more than 12 pieces of fixed equipment per 100 vertical feet (roughly 1 piece per 10 feet, plus anchors).

•    Require that land managers approve or deny MRA submissions for existing or proposed fixed equipment within a certain number of days of the submission of the MRA application. If the land manager doesn’t approve or deny the MRA submission in that time frame, the MRA should be deemed approved to ensure that administrative backlogs do not unintentionally stifle the exploration and enjoyment of our public lands.

•    Establish through a system-wide MRA that in all Wilderness managed by the Agency climbers are permitted to place fixed equipment when necessary for retreat from vertical/technical terrain due to hazardous conditions, at the climber’s sole discretion.

•    Direct land managers to establish a commission made up of climbers and other Wilderness users to evaluate and approve or deny fixed equipment MRA submissions. The Agency should look to organizations like the Action Committee for Eldorado as a guide for how to manage climbing and the use of fixed equipment in a thoughtful, forward looking way.

Although these changes still fall short and will unreasonably and unlawfully restrict exploration of all parts of our wilderness areas—vertical spaces included—these changes will at least ensure that the Agency’s land managers aren’t left dealing with vague, arbitrary, and capricious guidance.

I’m grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Agency’s proposed regulations (though it is your obligation), and I appreciate the Agency’s acknowledgement that climbing is a legitimate use of Wilderness. But the Agency’s draft regulations remain overbroad and improper and must be rejected, or I fear that I won’t be able to share the views from the pointiest-peaks and the deepest canyons with my children that I’ve enjoyed in my life. I urge you to reconsider these regulations.

Sincerely,

Andy Ball

Denver, CO

Someone mentioned the lichen loss on climbs upthread. It reminded me of the cables on Half Dome. Now there's an installation!

• philip bonewrote:

Someone mentioned the lichen loss on climbs upthread. It reminded me of the cables on Half Dome. Now there's an installation!

No I am not. I'm just pointing out the fact old man that the climbers' experience is no more pure than other rec users...

Edit

Bottom line is if after reading the NPS draft proposal you are applauding the Federal Government then you are the problem!  Even if you don't like sport climbing in the wilderness, this will jeopardize ALL climbing.  The last thing we need is the Feds sorting out our disagreements and this policy is a sledgehammer looking for a nail.  Even if there are not many sport climbs in wilderness we don't need any rules telling us that there can't be(we can handle that as it always has been) and this can easily metastasize to other forms of climbing.  

With regards to puppy lover's stance that this is a non issue and since it will be impossible for managers to do anything about people bolting lines in the wilderness then we should stop fretting and just go on our ways, this is a deeply flawed view of the situation.  Once this policy is enacted it will be enforced, of course logistically they cannot come for every bolt but thinking that your choss pile is safe would be very shortsighted.  Let me paint a catastrophic, yet very possible scenario for you: This proposal goes into effect, then a climber submits an MRA and it gets rejected (or worse they don't submit an MRA) then they decide eff it the feds don't have the resources to enforce this so I am going to bolt it anyways.  This "outlaw" bolting happens repeatedly across many different sites, the NPS will not just throw up their hands and say oh well it's too hard to keep up with all the bolts.  A very likely outcome would be that they draft new regulations banning ALL climbing in wilderness. They would bother not discerning if you are doing a gear climb or clipping bolts as that would be too difficult, what they would likely do is ban it all as that would be relatively easy to enforce.  

If you like the NPS draft I assure you the governments stripping of your rights as a climber will not conveniently exclude only sport climbs and then it ends there.  Please oppose all aspects of any more government regulation and do it fast, you have under 3hrs.

Andy I really appreciate your well thought out comment, thank you for sharing!

Okay here is my last comment I have submitted to the NPS:

Dear NPS, while I have already submitted 2 other comments, I would like to add one more for your consideration.  My stance in both my prior comments is that the NPS should abandon this MRA process as it is going to be too difficult to implement effectively and greatly hamper the development and preservation of America’s proud and rich climbing tradition.  I would like to propose an alternate policy that I believe that could accomplish the goal that you are setting out to do and that is protect America’s wilderness (which most if not all climbers also want).  

If there are certain rock formations which you would like to limit human traffic to for legitimate reasons such as an endangered or threatened species habitat, culturally significant sites for Native Americans, or other legitimate reasons(other than we don’t want to see climbers ) then enact bans or restrictions at those specific sites.  There are countless examples in climbing where this is working, for example during raptors mating season climbers respect the raptor closures and work with the NPS to avoid the designated sites as instructed.  During the month of June climbers avoid Devils Tower out of respect for Native Americans cultural activities at that time of the year.   The fact is that everywhere you look there are examples such as the YNP facelift where climbers work with the NPS to preserve our wilderness for future generations.  By enacting your draft policy you would be destroying this collaborative and beneficial relationship between climbers and the NPS.  I highly encourage you to consider a site specific and much more narrow regulation instead of the unnecessarily broad and sweeping policy you have drafted.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Jose Gutierrez