Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Climbing Rules?

Are there general rules for climbing in a Wilderness Study Area (WSA), which is an area designated as a candidate for a future Wilderness area? I know that in a Wilderness area, generally speaking, climbing is allowed but power drill bolting is not. (There are some rules that make exceptions to this general trend, I know.) Would a WSA also fall under these guidelines? Or do WSA’s fall under general BLM rules where climbing and power drills are allowed, generally speaking? Thanks!

All the same rules apply in a WSA as in designated Wilderness. If not allowed in Wilderness, it is not allowed in a WSA. If you follow your hunch, you will be in trouble.

Interesting question by the OP. The first response seems correct interpretation to me, as well.

From BLM site explaining WSAs

Until Congress makes a decision to add or end consideration of a WSA, the BLM manages the area to ensure its suitability for designation as wilderness is not impaired.

Ditto the above two with a link to the management.

Until Congress makes a decision to add or end consideration of a WSA, the BLM manages the area to ensure its suitability for designation as wilderness is not impaired.

The same applies to all land management. Until Congress makes a decision to add or end consideration of a WSA, the area is managed to ensure its suitability for designation as wilderness is not impaired.

Kyle Owrote:

Are there general rules for climbing in a Wilderness Study Area (WSA), which is an area designated as a candidate for a future Wilderness area? I know that in a Wilderness area, generally speaking, climbing is allowed but power drill bolting is not. (There are some rules that make exceptions to this general trend, I know.) Would a WSA also fall under these guidelines? Or do WSA’s fall under general BLM rules where climbing and power drills are allowed, generally speaking? Thanks!

The real answer is to just call the field office that manages the area. You can't get a ticket for violating the Wilderness Act, you get a ticket for violating the regulations the agency makes based on their interpretation of the Wilderness Act, which is not consistent across the country or even across individual agencies. 

BLM regulations do specifically say power drills aren't allowed in designated Wilderness nation wide, but whether or not that regulation applies in WSAs and is enforceable is not clear to me. 

BLM field offices are usually responsive if you have a bona fide question. 

The rules were actually stricker in the WSA than in the wilderness area it eventually became.  No bolting was allowed in the WSA, hand bolting is allowed in the wilderness.  

Jay Goodwinwrote:

JE is a dumb ass.

I can't fathom how that post triggered you. Wild. 

^^^

Bot.

This is verbatim from a year-old Reddit post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PublicLands/comments/1263x9j/rock_climbing_was_born_in_wilderness_but_does_its/

A plagiarizing bot, no less.  

While perhaps not a dumbass, J E is an MRA-pushing apparent shill for Wilderness Watch, the group behind the current policy innovations, and the same group that single-handedly tanked the negotiated rulemaking process in 1999, which otherwise would have settled favorably the whole fixed anchor question once and for all. 

Andy Wiesnerwrote:

While perhaps not a dumbass, J E is an MRA-pushing apparent shill for Wilderness Watch, the group behind the current policy innovations, and the same group that single-handedly tanked the negotiated rulemaking process in 1999, which otherwise would have settled favorably the whole fixed anchor question once and for all. 

Blah blah blah blah blah blah. I mostly think the Wilderness act is naive, and we're seeing the fallout of a poorly written law. I like how Wilderness looks, even if I think the law has problems. One thing I don't like is entitled climbers. 

In all these posts, with everyone arguing that bolts shouldn't be subject to the wilderness act because they are so small or not visible or whatever else, all I see is entitlement. Climbers are not more compatible with wilderness than other people in the woods. Nothing is special about climbing. If anything, it's on the higher impact end compared to other activities

Also, I want to point out that in this post, I told the guy that WSAs could conceivably have LESS legal protection than Wilderness. How is that me being a wilderness watch shill? 

I'm not a real climber if I think Access fund is misguided and climbers should be subject to the Wilderness act's provisions just like everyone else? 

Ibid.

I think JE is a shill, look at profile. I bet he(she) has never had thier ass hanging 1,000 off the deck.
Good call Jay Goodwin

Guy Keeseewrote:

I think JE is a shill, look at profile. I bet he(she) has never had thier ass hanging 1,000 off the deck.
Good call Jay Goodwin

I guess you all have decided not to address points and to try ad hominem attacks. 

I've climbed walls, towers, ice, etc. it's fun and I like it. It's basically all I did for about a decade. You can decide I'm a liar if you want, but it doesn't change what I'm saying. 

Yeah, I made a bullshit account so I can post opinions without worrying about professional fallout. Sometimes that happens to people who have jobs. 

Fake accounts suck balls. You are not brave enough to stand up for what you believe. That’s the cowardly thing to do. 

Guy Keeseewrote:

Fake accounts suck balls. You are not brave enough to stand up for what you believe. That’s the cowardly thing to do. 

Must be convenient to live in such a black and white world. 

J Ewrote:

Must be convenient to live in such a black and white world. 

J E's use of the loaded term "entitled" is exactly the kind of "black and white world" thinking that J E in the next breath decries. 

Our society is organized around entitlements. We are all entitled to due process and equal protection under the law. Home ownership is a form of entitlement. There are people on this forum who are entitled to a fair hearing on account of their established bona fides. There is nothing per se wrong with the concept of entitlement. 

J E is suggesting, I suppose, something else: That a claim to the status quo with respect to fixed anchors is somehow unjustified. But what about the fact that climbing as a recreational land use employing fixed anchors pre-dates the Wilderness Act? Or the fact that for decades we have enjoyed a permitted but regulated policy with respect to fixed anchors, which now J E and whoever J E is shilling for want to change to prohibited with exceptions, and pretend that there's no difference? Or what about the entitlements conferred by Director's Order 41, or even the de minimis carveout of "substantially unnoticeable" right there in the Wilderness Act, which J E so breezily dismisses?

J E claims to be about the facts, but is really blowing smoke, and from behind a curtain. 

Fixed anchor use in climbing existed before the wilderness act, so did basically everything else the wilderness act regulates like boats and ATVs and roads and buildings and horse camps, etc. 

Also, you state it as fact that the policies you're arguing about are a change, but they aren't. This is how the land managers have been interpreting the wilderness act for decades. 

It wouldn't bother me if you all were openly against the wilderness act, but instead most of you take this supremely hypocritical position where y'all will use the wilderness act like a club on other land users, while saying it doesn't apply to climbing, while going to climber festivals pretending to be the best wilderness stewards. 

It isn't about being entitled to certain legal protections, but about being entitled to them while other citizens are not, because you're a climber. 

“””It isn't about being entitled to certain legal protections, but about being entitled to them while other citizens are not, because you're a climber.”””

Try harder dude. We’re entitled because we are taxpayers. The land belongs to everybody. 

I agree with you @J E, bolts are inconsistent with the wilderness described in the wilderness act. I also want to climb in the wilderness and that climbing requires fixed anchors.

Given these two realities, and the fact that rewriting the wilderness act so as to make acceptable the installation of climbing bolts (at anytime/by anyone) is a political nonstarter, most climbers are advocating for an interpretation of the wilderness act that is a bit of a stretch.  

Still, I believe climbing makes people’s lives better: happier, healthier, more environmentally conscious.  To me, bolts impact the landscape minimally relative to this benefit.  If this sort of cost/benefit equation seems inconsistent with the wilderness act, maybe consider that it is the same sort of analysis employed by the forest service in the creation of new trails/campsites in wilderness.  

TLDR: if it sounds hypocritical, maybe it is. But a climber-friendly interpretation of the wilderness act is our only recourse given the (disappointing) political realities we’re operating within