Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware

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.”

Andy Wiesnerwrote:

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.”

Hey, I just posted facts. If you hate the policy and you're expecting another chance to fight it before it is active, or expecting to hear what the agencies did with all the comments, wouldn't it be good to know that isn't going to happen? 

I'm pro shared use, pro land management for the public, and anti "the community will manage it" because that idea has never worked. If that's an axe to grind, then sure, whatever.

 I'm not even saying what is right or wrong, just saying what the government is actually doing in this case. The government has been applying the Wilderness act to fixed anchors for decades, Access fund decided to fight it now, for whatever reason. 

The agencies published draft documents and then invited public comments. They will make an announcement when they take the next step. That might be publishing a final document, or another round of revised drafts, or a committee, or something else, up to them. But they're not going to slip something by in secret. There's not even a way for them to do that; any change in policy must be communicated to staff, and the NPS and FS don't have secret secure classified comms channels. No need for FOIA, they post these things to their websites.

Here is a recent update from the AAC: https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2024/2/7/fixed-anchors-whats-next 

If someone is itching to use FOIA, you could FOIA for all the MRA permits supporting fixed anchors that the agencies permitted for the last 60 years. (You won't find any, because the agencies did not previously consider anchors to be installations that required permits.)

James -wrote:

The agencies published draft documents and then invited public comments. They will make an announcement when they take the next step. That might be publishing a final document, or another round of revised drafts, or a committee, or something else, up to them. But they're not going to slip something by in secret. There's not even a way for them to do that; any change in policy must be communicated to staff, and the NPS and FS don't have secret secure classified comms channels. No need for FOIA, they post these things to their websites.

Here is a recent update from the AAC: https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2024/2/7/fixed-anchors-whats-next 

If someone is itching to use FOIA, you could FOIA for all the MRA permits supporting fixed anchors that the agencies permitted for the last 60 years. (You won't find any, because the agencies did not previously consider anchors to be installations that required permits.)

It wouldn't be secretive. This is an internal policy that for whatever reason, they asked for public comment on. They can finalize and issue the policy without any public involvement. Individual parks can implement the policy without any public involvement. It's a policy, not a law or regulation. This is how it is normally done. 

Not all internal policies are posted on websites, the highest level ones usually are (which this is not), but not always. 

If you submit a FOIA request for MRA/installations on anchors, make sure to target an individual park that has issued permits for bolt replacement. In California, which I know best, Joshua Tree comes to mind. I almost guarantee you that they've been doing MRAs for fixed anchors for years. 

I don't blame folks for not understanding this, considering the Access fund is actively spreading disinformation. 

Ask Congress to Pass the EXPLORE Act — Access Fund

Apparently the vote is tomorrow, April 9. 

Lane Mathiswrote:

Ask Congress to Pass the EXPLORE Act — Access Fund

Apparently the vote is tomorrow, April 9. 

Thanks Lane. Quick turn around time on this one. Bump.

The vote is today. 

J E wrote:
Hey, I just posted facts.
The government has been applying the Wilderness act to fixed anchors for decades, Access fund decided to fight it now, for whatever reason.

J Ewrote:

If you submit a FOIA request for MRA/installations on anchors, make sure to target an individual park that has issued permits for bolt replacement. In California, which I know best, Joshua Tree comes to mind. I almost guarantee you that they've been doing MRAs for fixed anchors for years. 

I don't blame folks for not understanding this, considering the Access fund is actively spreading disinformation. 

Misleading again.
1.  The government for many decades did NOT consider minor numbers of anchors to be an issue that fell under the category of prohibited "installation."   You have misstated that policy dozens of times now.

2. The AF is well aware that there are clear restrictions on fixed anchors in some areas.  The AF has always been against "blanket" default severe restrictions nationwide, even those areas that don't have a significant issue with anchors.

3.  And this new MRA system is set up to be more restrictive than the old bolting permit in JTree, which was NOT called an MRA.  

The Explore Act just passed in the House. Here's the language in the bill regarding rock climbing:

The HoR actually passed something? Shocking.

Nice to see a bill of actual value get some attention.

tom donnellywrote:

Misleading again.
1.  The government for many decades did NOT consider minor numbers of anchors to be an issue that fell under the category of prohibited "installation."   You have misstated that policy dozens of times now.

2. The AF is well aware that there are clear restrictions on fixed anchors in some areas.  The AF has always been against "blanket" default severe restrictions nationwide, even those areas that don't have a significant issue with anchors.

3.  And this new MRA system is set up to be more restrictive than the old bolting permit in JTree, which was NOT called an MRA.  

Thanks tom. I'm playing a game that started on this related thread.

For each fresh deposit of disinformation that J E drops on these forums, I will contribute ten more dollars to the Armando Menocal Climbing Advocacy Fund, up to a total additional contribution of $250.

These three bring the total up to 60 bucks. Anyone who can, please join me.

A dog pile on JE won't help the cause, it seems to me from reading this thread that JE is only providing an alternate viewpoint on rules and laws that are always up for interpretation. 

I don't understand why everyone seems to think that the wilderness act doesn't apply to bolts, and land managers haven't previously applied it to bolts for the last fifty years. It's contrary to all evidence. 

Andy tried to argue that agencies haven't been doing MRAs because he's never seen one, despite the fact that an MRA is an internal decision making guide that is not released publicly. It's just a stupid little document, you can download the template for it from wilderness.net. Do the FOIA request dude. I bet the Access Fund already has, which is why I take issue with their messaging, since it's almost a lie at this point. 

That being said, I'll keep this thread going if y'all are going to donate to the Access Fund when I post. I don't think they are perfect, but we need some kind of advocacy. 

I'm definitely a wilderness shill playing 4D chess. Nailed it. 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

There's our license to fix anchors in our Wilderness. They can drop bears but we can't drop bolts?! I'm feeling pushed around by our government. 

Smith Rockwrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

There's our license to fix anchors in our Wilderness. They can drop bears but we can't drop bolts?! I'm feeling pushed around by our government. 

You realize that the people fighting for bolting bans are also citizens of the US and have a right to tell you to fuck off with your bolting privilege right? Welcome to democracy, your highness 

John Clarkwrote:

You realize that the people fighting for bolting bans are also citizens of the US and have a right to tell you to fuck off with your bolting privilege right? Welcome to democracy, your highness 

Have you seen what the rock houds do in our wilderness areas?! Hey. If you're going to have a standard you may as well make it a double. 

I'll put an anchor wherever I want. 

Smith Rockwrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

There's our license to fix anchors in our Wilderness. They can drop bears but we can't drop bolts?! I'm feeling pushed around by our government. 

I think you misunderstand the Declaration of Independence.  That was a bunch of colonists telling Britain: "fuck off we are going to make our own laws".  You are forgetting the really important next step, that those colonists did just what they said they would.  They went off and made their own laws, which eventually included laws restricting your right to stick bolts on things.  It's all a balancing act.  Your right to install bolts, someone else's right to enjoy unmodified wilderness.  The current debate is about where the fulcrum goes.

Smith Rockwrote:

[Some nonsense about the declaration of independence]… I'll put an anchor wherever I want. 

Great, I’m gonna go grid bolt Snake Dike and glue on some more holds to make the movement more “enjoyable,” I’ll be sure to let everyone know the founding fathers sent me and there’s nothing they can do about it.

In all seriousness, there are many good arguments to be made against the proposed restrictions on anchors, but an absolute right to permanently alter the rock when it aligns with our individual pursuit of happiness is not among them. I also oppose the regulations in the new proposals, but I can acknowledge that it’s well within the purview of the government to get involved when a tragedy of the commons threatens community resources. It should do so only when necessary and in the least restrictive way possible to balance the freedoms of all user groups. I don’t think the current proposal does a good job of striking that balance (largely because I think the restrictive impact of permitting process would exceed the impact that current climbing practices have on other user groups), but it’s a balance, not an absolute right.

The 5-minute song "Bolting in the Wilderness" was dropped from Hamilton for a reason.