RED ROCK -- BOLT UPDATE

John J. Glime wrote:... the BLM needs to understand the work involved bolting without a power drill. As long as there is a rule about no power drills, I can't see someone sewing up any route (even on sandstone) when drilling by hand. ...

One of the things working against this simple approach is the large number of counter-examples in our own canyons. Some people HAVE SEWN UP routes in the past, even drilling by hand, and there is no indication of a growing community resistance to such practices.

No Larry, I don't think there's room for agreement. Bolts are not installations, that's just dumb. If people want to argue that, they could argue that footprints are installations, since your shoe could have non-native seeds on it that would effect a permanent change to the land, or you could crush one last plant of a particular species. So why not require a NEPA finding to leave the trail as a hiker?

At some point, it's just ridiculous. Climbing is almost the definition of appropriate Wilderness visitation - a "primitive and unconfined type of recreation." Even with a good pair of binoculars and a guidebook, you can't even find camouflaged bolts. Even a heavily bolted route is often completely invisible until you get very, very close.

I want to be reasonable and work with land managers, but you have to start somewhere. If they want to blatantly misinterpret the Wilderness Act to regulate bolts, then that's not some place that we can start from.

If they want to talk about vegetation damage from trails, then there's a reasonable place to start.

Greg Barnes wrote:No Larry, I don't think there's room for agreement. Bolts are not installations...

Not to dive to deeply into the legalese, but BLM manages things that are not "installations" (e.g. commercial activities). Can you find NO plausible grounds for managing bolting?

No Larry, I can not find a reason why the BLM should be managing bolting.

Case 1: someone goes out and climbs a great new long crack system. No bolts are used.

Case 2: someone goes out and climbs a great new long face climb. Lots of bolts are used.

Why is there a difference in the management?

There's no doubt at all that a new awesome 5.7 crack with no bolts will have a larger environmental impact than a new face route that is 5.12. Or even if you look at two 5.7 routes, if the face one has lots of loose holds and the climbing isn't that great, then the crack will get a trail to it in no time at all, and the face will stand ignored.

Why does the BLM care about the level of bolting? Who are they to tell us about whether or not we use a bolt?

The number one factor in future popularity is route quality. Bolts CAN have an impact, but they may or may not depending on the route, and their impact is frequently tangential.

In fact, you could easily argue that the crack system has a larger impact on the environment. Plants are frequently found in cracks, and while you may climb around them and only break a few branches, if the route gets popular, then the plant often suffers. Routes out on faces tend to have less impact.

I'm not looking for more sport routes out in the canyons, but I am looking for a reasonable basis for government regulation of my unconfined recreation in Wilderness. Bolts aren't it. Restrictions on sport climbs may be a reasonable regulation, but not just bolts.

Larry, how would you react if the BLM proposed a ban on climbing all crack systems because there might be plants in the cracks?

How about a ban on putting a sling around a tree?

Well, one difference might be that there is a natural limit on the number of crack lines. But without some regulation (normally provided by the climbers themselves) there could be an infinite number of bolted routes. If the Gallery or the Black Corridor is what climbers do when left to do their own regulation, I think wilderness characteristics will have a very short half-life.

Greg Barnes wrote: ... I'm not looking for more sport routes out in the canyons...

maybe there is a basis for agreement here?

I don't think this distinction is so far-fetched. The BLM's suggested type 1 permit is intended to be very lightweight and easy to acquire...

Larry, I don't want BLM rules to act as government enforcement of the ethics of a subset of climbers on another subset of climbers. Which is precisely how the whole bolt controversy started, of course.

Why invite the BLM to enter such a mess?

It's far easier to rely on hand drilling without regulation, and:

1) sport climbers don't like to hike
2) crags can be regulated just fine by climbers - for instance that ugly little gold-bolt sport route left of Black Track is no longer there.
3) sport climbers don't like to hike.
4) see points 1) and 3)

I'm afraid that a good number of people are just fine with government regulation as long as sport routes are kept away from the canyons. I have to admit that'd be just fine with me, even if I put up fully bolted face routes they wouldn't be sport. But it's a slippery slope - how do you define it? Why invite the government to regulate? Why not rely on the existing Wilderness Act - no power tools? That alone should prevent sport routes. If someone goes over the line, there are time-honored methods of removing the offending routes - and that can be kept within the climbing community, with no need for government regulation.

I say let the BLM focus on more important issues, and climbers can help the BLM enforce the Wilderness Act - no power drills.

No other regulation is needed. If someone steps over the line, the climbing community can deal with it. It's worked just fine elsewhere for a long time.

Greg, I couldn't agree more (with all of your posts here.)

And I would like to continue to thank Larry for all of his effort.

Greg Barnes wrote:... Why invite the BLM to enter such a mess? ...

I don't think they need an invitation here...

I see where you are coming from, Greg. And, in fact, my sympathies lie very much in line with your own. I doubt that I will convince you of anything, but let me lay out my thoughts.

Over the past couple of years I have spent a lot of time talking with a lot of BLM folks. In general, I have been positively impressed with their desire to not only protect the wilderness, but their recognition of the essential aspects of climbing and its place as a valid wilderness pursuit. They even recognize that freedom from burdensome regulation is an inherently important aspect of the climbing (and wilderness) experience. But keep in mind that "freedom from burdensome regulation" is condition that will NEVER apply to the people in the BLM. They are part of an organization that stretches across the country, takes orders from Washington, and is legislatively controlled by Congress. The result is a tremendous amount of institutional inertia that is very difficult to overcome at a local level.

Now, I could be wrong, and I'd sure hate to give up too easily, but my reading is that all that inertia is headed toward a permit process for wilderness bolting. What do you do? One option is to fight the juggernaut; maybe it wouldn't be hopeless. Another option is to try and help the BLM formulate a set of procedures that is favorable to climbers while still satisfying the BLM's bureaucratic needs. The BLM has opened the door-- this is an opportunity for us to influence our future.

I understand one hundred percent if your choice is to fight the juggernaut. I'll cheer you on and hope you'll win. I'm not ready to give up on option two yet. And I'll further say this-- there's a thousand ways to end up with a bad plan; the only way to get a good one is if the climbing community jumps in with some hard work and creative thinking.

I guess I just don't see why the BLM wants to come up with a policy that is different than the NPS and USFS standard of just letting the Wilderness Act do its job.

So perhaps common sense will reign sooner or later, and the BLM will realize that the NPS and USFS policies haven't led to a glut of bolting in Wilderness.

As I said above, the one thing that will really save the day, regardless of any BLM regulations or trad climbers complaints, is that sport climbers hate to hike! OK, heading off to climb...

Greg Barnes wrote:I guess I just don't see why the BLM wants to come up with a policy that is different than the NPS and USFS standard of just letting the Wilderness Act do its job. ...

I won't presume to convey any kind of official BLM view, but even I can see legitimate distinctions. Although Red Rock is classified as an official "Wilderness Area," it is not protected by remoteness, it is not huge to the point of limitlessness, and it is close to a large urban center. It does not seem unreasonable for the BLM to take account of these facts.

This is actually a good thing. If the BLM were to unthinkingly apply some national standard that was unfavorable to climbers (as opposed to the simple "hand-drill only" rule), the protest would be immediate and justified. The fact that they are trying to adapt their management to reflect local conditions seems like a worthy approach.

p.s. have a good climb!

Larry DeAngelo wrote:...how to permit new fixed anchors in the Rainbow Mountain Wilderness via a limited experimental permit process....

If the idea is to experiment, then why not just go with the type I permit? Limited bolting, 3 bolts or less in the first 100 ft, a maximum average of 5 bolts per 150 feet above there, including anchors. If you get partway up your route and realize you may want more bolts, come back down and wait for the final wilderness management plan.

Should be a two-week or less process once the initial land-rush is over (like rebolting permits now). Would require about the same amount of information as a re-bolting permit, with a description of the proposed route.

It's wilderness, so obviously only hand drills.

That should give the BLM a feel for how much demand there will be for permits, and give them a chance to see what the impact on wilderness values will be like, without opening the floodgates to a Black Corridor in the wilderness. They'll see our impact is the same or less than that of hikers who trim vegetation.

After several years of this experiment, the BLM may then see that by designating this as Wilderness, and limiting camping in the canyons, they have already achieved their management goal of limiting human impacts that would be obvious to recreational users.

Soapbox:
Ironically, the vast majority of climbers do *not* want to go to a cliff that has absolutely no signs of human use and no information about previous use (i.e. a route description). Trails, chalk, bolts, fixed gear, tat, are all welcome signs to most that they are on route and not about to enter the unknown. We're just like wilderness hikers, as a group. It's not clear at all just how much of a wilderness experience most climbers are looking for most of the time. I think until the majority of climbers learn to view "wilderness climbing" as a separate category of experience, wilderness designation will continue to be meaningless to most of us.

OK, I'm done now.

Doug Hemken wrote: If the idea is to experiment, then why not just go with the type I permit? Limited bolting, 3 bolts or less in the first 100 ft, a maximum average of 5 bolts per 150 feet above there, including anchors.

That's an absolutely ridiculous requirement for bolting. What'd you'd most likely end up with, is some 5.13 climber bolting the first 10 feet of a 5.10 route, then running it out to a belay another 150 or worse. In other words, a death route. By design, not choice. I can't imagine.

Lacks any common sense.

The bolt count should be up to the individual, not a land manager. And the terrain, difficulty, and what ever the individual first ascentionist feels like they need should be taken into account.

No wonder folks ignore the rules at Red Rocks.

Frustration level: high.

Considering this is the BLM, especially. Known in some spots as the Bureau of Livestock and Mining.

Climber's sorta came out o.k. with regard to the Forest Service on fixed anchors in Wilderness.

And, historically, bolts/fixed anchors were in the Red Rocks long before the area was designated wilderness.

One post hole for a sign in the Red Rocks removes more material than over a 1000 bolt holes. So, there's your real impact.

Geez, this is neat-o:

blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib…

Here's a focus of the BLM in Nevada (posted below) that makes them going after a single bolt in Red Rocks kind of silly.

-Brian in SLC

OIL AND GAS SALE NETS RECORD BIDS OF NEARLY $3.1 MILLION

A record-breaking quarterly oil and gas lease sale held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) on June 14 netted close to $3.1 million in bonus bids. The sale took place at the BLM Nevada State Office in Reno.

The State of Nevada will receive half of the revenue collected from this sale.

The total bids and fees received, along with the number of acres sold, were by far the highest that BLM Nevada has seen in 14 years of competitive oil and gas lease sales.

The BLM sold 163 of the 344 parcels offered for the sale. This amounts to 335,537 acres sold out of 710,215 offered. The highest bid received for a single parcel was $219,260; the highest bid per acre was $95.

According to John Menghini, petroleum engineer for the BLM Nevada Division of Minerals Management, industry interest in this particular oil and gas sale was higher than usual because of:

- Strong global oil and gas prices.

- Discoveries in surrounding states have given rise to speculation that similar formations and characteristics might exist below Nevada’s wide-open spaces.

- Pending National Energy Legislation.

During the last quarterly competitive sale in March 2005, more than $192,000 in bonus bids were received for 46,123 acres. For fiscal year 2004, more than $563,000 in bonus bids were received for 139,398 acres.

"Nevada’s potential for oil and natural gas production is largely unexplored," Menghini said. "For those in the energy industry, Nevada is the next frontier in oil and gas exploration."

"In the future, Nevada could become a major player in the nation’s efforts to address domestic energy needs."

-BLM-

I am interested in finding out how I can truly be helpful in this effort. However, as it stands right now this forum has missed it's intended mark. The folks that have posted are overly concerned about "ethics", "style", does the BLM care about this? (That is a real question)

Also government bureaucracy and hypocracy seem to be up for debate. However, I don't think that pointing this out to the BLM will help out our cause. (again a real question, if it will help lets do it)

Larry: I still am wondering what kind of information you are looking for from the climbing community. I would guess that many others are wondering the same due to the lack of diversity in the people chiming in.
If there is a real way to be constructive and helpful in getting this very important ball rolling PM me.

Darren Snipes wrote:I am interested in finding out how I can truly be helpful in this effort. ...

Darren-- you are right about the discussion veering off the direction I had anticipated. And you are further right that the BLM is not concerned with style and ethics questions. They need an effective way to manage the wilderness resource, and currently they anticipate that a bolt permit program will allow this.

Some aspects of a permit program are of great importance to climbers (even if they are not directly critical to managing the wilderness). For example, early in the thread the question arose of "How confidential should an application be?" There are reasons to go either way. Some climbers may want maximum secrecy to avoid having an unscrupulous competitor "steal" a route. On the other hand, if there is no public review, there is no opportunity for other members of the community to comment (for example if the proposed route has previously been climbed). I might reconcile the two sides by keeping the details secret until other checks are complete. Maybe there is a better way?

I have (as you might imagine) a bunch of ideas on how to structure such a program. I hesitated initially to outline my own thoughts because I did not want to implicitly restrict discussion. If you all think it would be worthwhile, I'd be happy (maybe willing?) to post up my concept and let you guys shoot it full of holes...

Larry DeAngelo wrote:If you all think it would be worthwhile, I'd be happy (maybe willing?) to post up my concept and let you guys shoot it full of holes...

Sure, post it up.

The climbing management plan process is interesting. Some times, folks can pour a TON of effort into it, with the land manager doing what they'll do anyhow. Sometimes, they'll listen to the most elequent amongst us, who may also represent their point of view, but, not the majority of users.

Not sure why this BLM office has gone out of their way to ban bolting. I can't think of another BLM office that has done such. Examples? Some of that history might be useful. Is there one person who hates bolts and/or climbers? Example: Twin Sisters at the City of Rocks is off limits to climbing because...

Here in Utah, it can get itchy. When you get a local sheriff piling BLM signs on the BLM office doorstep...

Anyhoo, I'd like to keep this productive too, but, it gets darn frustrating and nonsensical.

Cheers,

-Brian in SLC

I think Red Rocks has a vast potential for new routes, and that even doubling or tripling the number of routes in the canyons wouldn't really change things that much. I think that Larry, and probably others, would disagree with me. But I see a lot more routes per available section of rock in Yosemite, and not that much traffic. I think 2 or 3 times the routes in the canyons, with 2 or 3 times the climbers, would still be not that big a deal. And I think that 2 or 3 times the number of routes would not produce that many more climbers, particularly because of the long hikes required.

Take a step back, and look at the Wilderness Act:

Wilderness..."(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; ...."

Look at the numbers of hikers visiting Little Yosemite Valley, Mt Whitney, Rocky Mountain National Park, etc. The number of climbers will never even approach that. Climbing, and doing new routes, is one of the most unconfined sorts of recreations. Trying to confine rock climbing to current levels is just unnecessary - and my bet is that even with tons more routes, lots of which have bolts, the use level just won't get that high thanks to the hikes involved.

If some area up in the canyons is really important for sheep, or has lots of raptors, that's one thing - and I think nearly all climbers would be cool with voluntarily avoiding such areas. But new route rules of any sort (beyond the Wilderness Act prohibition on power drills) are just not needed.

With respect to limited bolts on the first pitch:

Brian in SLC wrote: What'd you'd most likely end up with, is some 5.13 climber bolting the first 10 feet of a 5.10 route, then running it out to a belay another 150 or worse.

You confuse what is theoretically possible with what is likely. What is likely is a whole slew of routes in the style of "Birdland", "Armatron", or "Peyote Power". But you already know that.

A benefit to the BLM of type 1 permits as an experiment is that much of the illegal bolting being done now would come out in the open, and the BLM would have better information about what is going on in this Wilderness. You can't manage well without good information.

The point of the type 1 permit is that it excludes sport-style bolting, which many people believe is more likely to induce crowds in the Wilderness. As I see it, what the BLM most fears is the emergence of a Black Corridor, Panty Wall, or Gallery in the Wilderness. What would happen if we started sport-bolting around Sunnyside? Added more sport routes near Brass Wall?

You could look at much of the illegal bolting going on as an experiment in itself. Look at the popularity of the three routes above. Is the point-impact too much for a Wilderness?

There is an obvious problem correlating bolting and popularity - Olive Oil is just as popular post-bolt-removal as it was with bolts - but for better or worse dealing with bolts is the BLM's starting point. They don't want the Wilderness per se to be unpopular, they just don't want any one part of it to be overly popular, whatever that means. That's why they want to outlaw things like geo-caching and hunter's camps in the Wilderness.

It seems like we climbers are having a lot of trouble distinguishing between what would be a viable and useful experiment and what the final rules should be.

Soapbox again:
Maybe the BLM would be better off just waiting for the process for their final plan to be completed? If climbers are immediately confused by the difference between an experiment and the final management plan, just imagine how hard it would be to explain what's going on in an experiment to non-climbing Wilderness advocates.

It seems some (many?) climbers aren't actually behind the idea of modern Wilderness. They put oil and gas exploration in non-wilderness areas in the same category as climbing exploration in wilderness areas. They want to lump building a curb by the side of a highway, or building a visitor's center on non-wilderness land, with installing bolts in the backcountry. They are not interested in saying that some areas have been designated for special protection. They feel that any climber should be able to explore any rock anywhere with whatever tools they see fit to use. Imagine giving that kind of carte blanche to atv riders, mountain bikers, hikers, hunters.

Can climbers come together as a community and work to preserve some of the wilderness qualities of the Rainbow Mountain Wilderness? I'm not sure we can. It seems that people ignore the bolting ban regularly, and no one is interested in informing the BLM when it happens. We're not even interested in maintaining the backcounty experience on existing trad routes: Black Dagger, Olive Oil, Ginger Cracks, Tunnel Vision, and many other routes have all received retrobolts. A few have been cleaned up; most have not. Apparently, Red Rock is the climbing equivalent of the old wild west, complete with claim jumpers and cattle rustlers. We are all willing to turn a blind eye to the depredations.

Given the lack of cohesion and the lack of people willing to step forward and be responsible for taking care of the wilderness, the BLM would be well advised to just forget this "experiment" idea and forge ahead with their official process. At least the official process is built to take on lack of consensus.

Brian in SLC wrote: One post hole for a sign in the Red Rocks removes more material than over a 1000 bolt holes. So, there's your real impact.

Yeah, what's up with all the god awful signs popping up in Red Rock. I feel like I'm at Disneyland being directed to Toontown. And WHAT THE HELL?.... gynormous Rainbow Wilderness signs on Rocky Gap Road. Oh, and the two "DANGER, DANGER" flash flood, rolling rock signs in that little wash greeting you at the entrance to First Creek, with the eyesore wooden posts with poor cable rigging for some distance during your hike, TACKY! Signs, signs, signs. What next? Are we going to start seeing billboards of sexy, cool people advertising Red Rock? And why is that nice public restroom by the gatorade machine at the entrance to Red Rock always closed to the public, why, why why?

I feel better now.

Proceed, boys.

So Doug, what I get from your post is that you are a climber who is fine with enforcing your ethics on other climbers through the BLM.

I just want to clarify your position.

To clarify my position, it is 1) the current quantity of routes in much of Red Rocks is far, far below equivalent cliffs in Yosemite and elsewhere, 2) it is my observation that the much larger route numbers in Yosemite do not produce more climbers, but spread them out, and 3) even if the number of climbers on great new semi-bolted routes like Birdland and Armatron goes way up, the approaches of Red Rocks will keep overall numbers down.

It does no good at all to complain online about retrobolts. Someone cared enough to restore certain routes to the original state, and the added bolts on other routes could easily and quickly be taken care of without complaining on the internet. I know you're willing to do an amazing amount of work to go replace bolts on Birdhunter Buttress with hand drills over many trips - so why complain here when a lot less work would solve the problem?

Complaining about retrobolts reveals your bias in that you assume people who so disrespect existing classic trad routes would bring ethics that are different from yours into new routing in Wilderness. So you're basically saying retrobolting is a reason to bring the BLM into regulating bolts - not to protect the environment, but to protect your vision of climbing.

What would you say if the BLM stopped allowing new crack routes? I really think some people here need to answer that question.

Personally, I think that wilderness designation and not allowing motorized drills is all the protection this wilderness needs. I think we'll end up with a couple of sport crags in the official wilderness, but the impact on solitude and in new trails will be no different than we already have with Brass Wall and First Creek/Lotta Balls.

If we were back at the point where this area was just being declared wilderness ... but we're not. I'm interested in working with the BLM (and the Forest Service and NDOW, since this area is jointly managed). That means understanding their goals, the information they are looking at, their experience managing this particular property.

Soapbox:
I think the climbing community needs to clean up its own act before the BLM can have faith that some sort of less-than-formal give-and-take would be worth their effort.

Globally, I think the climbing community has yet to come to terms with the modern idea of wilderness. Conserving wild areas in the midst of modern society requires restraint. But I think the dominant image of "wilderness climbing" is the old wild west idea - pretty much anything goes that an individual choses to do. Restraint from using motors is a first step, but we should be willing to consider that further restraints might be appropriate. We're not willing to entertain the idea that some areas should remain boltless, not for the sake of climbing history, but for the sake of having huge boltless cliffs. We don't like to think that maybe we should refrain from climbing altogether in some areas, just for the sake of having unclimbed cliffs. If we're not willing to entertain ideas like that, then I think we're trying to bring a 19th century outlook to 21st century management problems.

I don't think we need more restraint in Red Rock at the present time, but I think it is reasonable that the BLM has wondered about it, and having raised the question, we can only help them work out the answer. Are we up to that task?