Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

This whole discussion on removable bolts could very well be moot anyway, NPS/FS can simply classify bolt holes as installations (this was discussed several pages back).

Are there any timelines for if/when public comments will be accounted for (if not addressed)? And when policies are expected to actually be implemented?

Redacted Redactbergwrote:

https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/e58fa613-5b01-4bb4-ab3e-9b57b906bb04/episodes/9ca5cf21-e45d-4c2a-95e5-418da9e64f48/first-ascent-podcast-at-the-forefront-of-bolt-innovation-with-dave-quinn-of-team-tough-bolt-products

I’m a little confused David. I listened to your podcast, but there is literally not a single mention of removable bolt other than Bolting Products no longer manufacturing RBs. Of course, Petzl still makes a removable bolt (Coeur Pulse) 

Frank Steinwrote:

I’m a little confused David. I listened to your podcast, but there is literally not a single mention of removable bolt other than Bolting Products no longer manufacturing RBs. Of course, Petzl still makes a removable bolt (Coeur Pulse) 

Strange. Maybe you’re in a different country and it got censored. At 33:30 he talks about his new crossover bolt, works as a “temporary removeable bolt,” holds 2500 pounds without glue, resilient to rotation when swinging, easy to place and remove. Maybe hard to redpoint with the setting, but could pink point ;)

Doesn’t matter. Removable bolts are not a reasonable solution at all.

Ryan Kwrote:

Doesn’t matter. Removable bolts are not a reasonable solution at all.

All bolts are removeable. 

Wait! I did it! All bolts are removable, so therefore they are not permanent installations, therefore problem solved! Nailed it

John Clarkwrote:

Wait! I did it! All bolts are removable, so therefore they are not permanent installations, therefore problem solved! Nailed it

Thinking outside the box may have to be the new norm for us, that or going full anarchist. I'm OK with either. 

John Clarkwrote:

Wait! I did it! All bolts are removable, so therefore they are not permanent installations, therefore problem solved! Nailed it

I'm always here to be a party pooper, there is nothing in the wilderness act that says installations are "permanent". The standard the agencies use is, things are installations if they are left behind when the people leave. 

Holes without bolts in them would likely not be installations, but they would be easily regulated by other means. There are a handful of things in 36 CFR that could apply. 

Government overreach! Relatively small user groups should be able to modify public lands how they see fit with no government oversight! Yeah! 

One of those proposed guidelines included a prohibition on chipping. In spirit, I think that also would cover - prohibit - drilling holes. Adding just a few words to it / them would easily remove any ambiguity.

Going to RBs is fun to talk about but is mostly a dead end IMO.

Bill Lawrywrote:

Going to RBs is fun to talk about but is mostly a dead end IMO.

Yeah really, imagine being run out in Tuolumne and trying to find a 1/2in hole drilled into a sea of granite lol. Or finding it only to discover a bug has built a little mud home inside it. 

One of those proposed guidelines included a prohibition on chipping. In spirit, I think that also would cover - prohibit - drilling holes.

The tip of a chisel and the tip of a rock drill bit do the same thing: chip rock. There is no ambiguity.

Climbers brought this whole situation on themselves. 

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

The tip of a chisel and the tip of a rock drill bit do the same thing: chip rock. There is no ambiguity.

Just the tip?

JMLwrote:

Climbers brought this whole situation on themselves. 

Well, if you mean by having the temerity to climb in certain places, I guess so. For certain 'wilderness advocates' our mere presence is demeaning to their 'wilderness values'.

JMLwrote:

Climbers brought this whole situation on themselves. 

Can I quote this on my next gram story? Haha just kidding, no need for sources on the gram!

Looping back to the big questions, where is everything at with the decision around bolting? Have they said what is or isn't happening at this point?

Kephas Petroswrote:

Looping back to the big questions, where is everything at with the decision around bolting? Have they said what is or isn't happening at this point?

Nothing yet. An email update from SUWA a couple days ago put it this way: The problem is lawyers. Acess Fund lawyers look at the proposal and see 1. that fixed anchors will be categorized as "installations," 2. Installations in wilderness are, by default, banned. 3. AF Lawyers say no, no, no, no, ditch this proposal, start over! Meanwhile over at Wilderness Watch, their lawyers see 1. that fixed anchors will be categorized as "installations," 2. NPS will create a special workaround for climbers for approval for fixed anchors, 3. This opens up a route for possible other exceptions for other user groups. WW lawyers say, no, no, no ...ditch this proposal, start over.... 

For what it's worth, we wouldn't hear anything about this policy going into effect unless the agencies decide to do a press release or something. It's just policy, all the laws in question already exist. 

If your climbing area of interest already requires permits for anchor work, you will see no public changes at all since this is what most agencies that issue permits were already doing. 

If your climbing area doesn't require permits for anchor work, you would see a new permit requirement. 

You could see the development of new "climbing management plans" in places that don't have them, which this policy suggests making. 

FOIA it if you want. 

Steve Bartlettwrote:

Nothing yet. An email update from SUWA a couple days ago put it this way: The problem is lawyers. Acess Fund lawyers look at the proposal and see 1. that fixed anchors will be categorized as "installations, 2. Installations in wilderness are, by default, banned. 3. AF Lawyers say no, no, no, no, ditch this proposal, start over! Meanwhile over at Wilderness Watch, their lawyers see 1. that fixed anchors will be categorized as "installations," 2. NPS will create a special workaround for climbers for approval for fixed anchors, 3. This opens up a route for possible other exceptions for other user groups. WW lawyers say, no, no, no ...ditch this proposal, start over.... 

thank you very much for this update. so it sounds like some tail chasing will be the norm for a bit then.

J Ewrote:

For what it's worth . . . 

Well, that was predictable. 

People who take up the role of public educator here on MP usually have a lifetime of climbing and subject matter expertise in the real world and a long track record of substantive contributions to these forums to back them up. I’m thinking of well-known folks with established bona fides like RGold, Alan Rubin, and Mark Hudon, among many others. 

But who is this J E person, so intent to persuade us that something is nothing as regards these proposed new policies? You can almost hear the axe grind with each key stroke from this one. 

But don’t rely on the experts, educate yourself. Read the proposals from the NPS and the Forest Service. Then read the Wilderness Act, Director’s Order 41 and the PARC Act, and sample the public commentary. And when you’re done, ask yourself if you agree with the Access Fund’s assessment that these proposals constitute a “novel reinterpretation of the Wilderness Act to prohibit fixed anchors” that has “created one of the biggest threats to climbing access in recent memory.” 

I did and I do. If you agree and want to do more, consider contributing to the Access Fund's Armando Menocal Climbing Advocacy Fund, which “supports climbing policy and legislation efforts that help . . .  defend sustainable climbing access across the country.”