News and Petition vs. NPS/NFS Fixed Anchor Ban Proposals!!!

Lane Baldridgewrote:

Access fund just posted an update, NPS has withdrawn the proposal

https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/nps-usfs-proposed-climbing-guidance-public-input.htm 

Link not working. However:

"Today, the National Park Service (NPS) announced that it is rescinding proposed guidance on Wilderness climbing management that would have undermined sustainable Wilderness climbing access by classifying fixed anchors as prohibited “installations.” "

UPDATE December 18, 2024: The NPS has discontinued the development of this proposed guidance. Park leaders will continue to manage climbing activities in wilderness on a park-by-park basis consistent with applicable law and policy, including the Wilderness Act.

https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1207/nps-usfs-proposed-climbing-guidance-public-input.htm 

The battle might have been won, but the war isn’t over. The judgement on where fixed anchors are acceptable is up to the whim of individual superintendents, which varies widely and is subject to lots of bias. In many ways, it might have been better to see this issue escalate to the point where fixed anchors received clear definition as acceptable use of wilderness, to get extremist groups like Wilderness Watch completely shut down. As it stands, sounds like the door is still wide open to their bullshit tactics.

Access Fund Executive Director Heather Thorne.: “What happens next, though, is up to us as climbers. We must exercise restraint, humility and respect as we climb in these amazing Wilderness areas to ensure that they remain accessible for generations to come.”

 Ain’t holding my breath on that one. This issue boiled up because climbers clearly haven’t shown the ability to do this reasonably. This issue ain’t dead yet.

Congress passes PARC Act today. Everyone who wrote to their congressional representatives and the Access Fund, AAC and other climbing advocates for working in a bipartisan manner to get this passed.

See This Post for more information.

It is unfortunate that Armando Menocal did not live long enough to see this come to fruition -- an issue he championed for over 30 years.

Randy, you have a deep understanding of the processes involved actions like this- I'm curious about your take on the details and practical ramifications of it.

Yesterday, the NPS withdrew its proposal related to fixed anchors in the wilderness- did they withdraw it because they knew the EXPLORE/PARC act was likely to be passed and would supersede their proposal?

According to the AF announcement, the PARC act includes this provision: "

1. Requires the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture to issue national guidance on management of climbing within Wilderness areas;

Doesn't that seem to suggest that these Secretaries could develop national guidance that could still restrict climbing?

What kind of impact with the PARC act have on extremist groups (i.e. Wilderness Watch) who have been unrelenting in their lawsuits to push their agenda?

Climbers are excited because the PARC Act says:

(2) ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES.—The allowable activities referred to in paragraph (1) are—
(A) recreational climbing;
(B) the placement, use, and maintenance of fixed anchors; and
(C) the use of other equipment necessary for recreational climbing.

You can read the whole thing online: 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/1380/text

(Congress dork note: this is the original bill, which I understand was incorporated without changes into the larger EXPLORE Act, but I have not actually gone through the final EXPLORE Act text to check.)

So basically now Congress has stated that fixed anchors cannot be banned. This should stop any agency or court from doing so. 

That said, it does allow regulation under existing law including the Wilderness Act. So it’s not a free-for-all. The practical effect is that restrictions on climbing and fixed anchors will have to be justified, since they are otherwise now officially allowable activities. This is a rejection of the “installations” argument being pushed that would have defaulted every single anchor to “illegal”, and required justification paperwork for each one.

Bump for wonderful news! I see the access fund has also made a tool to thank Congress for passing the PARC act.

https://www.accessfund.org/action-alerts/thank-congress-for-passing-the-protecting-americas-rock-climbing-act

After the initial excitement following the passage of the PARC/Explore Act, there has been silence, but there is still one essential step needed for the bill to become law---the President has to sign it. While I presume this is something that President Biden supports and will sign, has anyone heard that this will indeed happen and, if so, when?

Alan Rubinwrote:

After the initial excitement following the passage of the PARC/Explore Act, there has been silence, but there is still one essential step needed for the bill to become law---the President has to sign it. While I presume this is something that President Biden supports and will sign, has anyone heard that this will indeed happen and, if so, when?

He signed it. 

Great. When? 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6492/all-actions 

Should be fun to see if any if this changes anything. I don't think the bill is inherently incompatible with the policy the agencies proposed before all this political stuff happened. They never proposed banning bolts in wilderness, so they might just keep trucking along with bolts being prohibited installations requiring MRAs. Honestly I think that's the most likely interpretation of the bill. 

We'll see! 

J Ewrote:

Should be fun to see if any if this changes anything. I don't think the bill is inherently incompatible with the policy the agencies proposed before all this political stuff happened. They never proposed banning bolts in wilderness, so they might just keep trucking along with bolts being prohibited installations requiring MRAs. Honestly I think that's the most likely interpretation of the bill. 

We'll see! 

Yea, I’m not exactly sure what either the policy or the new bill would change either.  The language saying that they are installations and saying that an MRA should be done was similar to the already-existing guidance.  MRAs are pretty straightforward, park-level documents that already happen for every trail sign and campsite in designated wilderness.  They can even be done once for entire programs or projects, so it’s unclear if the day-to-day park user would ever notice.  More parks might ask developers to apply for permits, but I think that’s the trend already.  It’s just uncomfortable to feel like the Eye of Suaron is turning your way.

J Ewrote:

Should be fun to see if any if this changes anything. I don't think the bill is inherently incompatible with the policy the agencies proposed before all this political stuff happened. They never proposed banning bolts in wilderness, so they might just keep trucking along with bolts being prohibited installations requiring MRAs. Honestly I think that's the most likely interpretation of the bill. 

We'll see! 

There has always been a lobby ( Wilderness Watch, for example) for banning bolts and there are undoubtedly some park administrators who share such views, so at the very least this legislation 'officially sanctions' them and makes any outright bans now highly unlikely. But there is also a more subtle impact, the very fact that Congress passed legislation officially recognizing climbing and fixed anchors should make park administrators more hesitant to over-regulate climbing---after all it is Congress that approves their funding!!! So having this legislation enacted and now signed is only a positive for the future of climbing in public lands ( presuming that we still have any public lands left in the coming years!!!!).

If something is allowed, that means it is not prohibited. This is not rocket science, people.

“Allowable”, not “allowed”.  It can still be prohibited at a park level for all the same reasons it already is, both good and bad.  

But Alan is probably right that the demonstration of political support for climbers is meaningful… so long as we can keep public lands public.  

James -wrote:

If something is allowed, that means it is not prohibited. This is not rocket science, people.

If laws worked that way, there wouldn't be lawyers. The agencies need to find a way to comply with the new bill and the wilderness act simultaneously while getting sued by both sides, and you'll notice that the new bill didn't provide any guidance on how to do that. 

Prior to the bill, the agencies said that bolts were both prohibited by the wilderness act, and allowed by it if necessary for pro-wilderness reasons (primitive and unconfined recreation of wilderness climbing). 

Obviously the new bill didn't intend for the agencies to not regulate bolts at all, so there is still the wide open question of what, if any, changes Congress wanted to see in how bolts are regulated. With the exception that they made it clear that a ban isn't allowed, solely on the basis of wilderness designation, which is great. 

More important than new bolts going up is that this bill allows maintenance of existing routes, which was the core danger facing climbing. There may be a line to toe park by park as far as new bolted development goes, but that’s all secondary.

This is about what climbing stood to lose much more than to gain.