Wilderness Bolting

Coeus wrote:By that logic Eric D. it would seem that we shouldn't even walk in wilderness areas. That would be truly no human impact. Where do you draw the line?

I think everyone has provided deceent comments on at least every issue. But in terms of where you draw the line, how about at the very issue we're discussing: bolting?

That's an extreme position, but to be frank, I do have a problem with bolts in a wilderness area. Twenty or thirty years ago, in my opinion, there was substantially more restraint when determining where and when to bolt. Currently, however, there is a significant group of climbers who don't even understand the issue. To them, bolting should be a right.

While it is nice to have a community consensus of what's appropriate and what isn't, the line is gradually moving towards bolting everything, even cracks. As long as a governmental agency is made arbiter of where to bolt, you have to accept the prospect that you may not be happy with it's decision making. While someone in this post advocated a position of being able to remove a route if a consensus permits it, when has that ever happened? Mistakes will beget more mistakes than people will point to the mistakes as an example of acceptable precedent. Not good.

Fat Dad wrote:Twenty or thirty years ago, in my opinion, there was substantially more restraint when determining where and when to bolt.

Not so sure about that. If you peruse the literature from those days, you'll see the same old debate. Its actually a semi painful part of American climbing history. See Smith Rocks, City of Rocks, Yosemite, etc, all as examples especially when "sport" climbing was starting to boom, in the mid to late 80's.

Fat Dad wrote:Currently, however, there is a significant group of climbers who don't even understand the issue. To them, bolting should be a right.

Actually, I see it the other way. They do understand the issue.

I think that was part of the arguement used to comment to the Forest Service with regard to bolts in wilderness. See the Access Fund and American Alpine Club positions for example.

Fat Dad wrote:While it is nice to have a community consensus of what's appropriate and what isn't, the line is gradually moving towards bolting everything, even cracks.

I don't think so. You have examples of areas in the U.S. which are wilderness where the bolting of cracks has been accepted? I can't think of any area, wilderness or not, besides some very privately owned places that aren't on public land.

Fat Dad wrote:While someone in this post advocated a position of being able to remove a route if a consensus permits it, when has that ever happened?

Happens all the time. Recently, see the Cat in the Hat thread for community consensus on a bolt which was subsequently removed.

Was a sport route to the left of the Green A that was removed in Little Cottonwood Canyon.

You have an example of a consensus of a route that should be removed that wasn't?

Pretty common to have inappropriate bolts removed, consensus or not. Usually followed by a period of really good feelings amongst the perpetrators of both the bolting, and the chopping. Seems like they always end up being good buddies aftewards...ha ha.

Ya wonder why Kauk named a route "Peace"?

For some interesting reading, take a week and read through the South Face of Half Dome posts on the super taco. Still quite the hot button, these bolts.

Isn't El Cap "wilderness"?

The requirement for hand drilling takes care of the majority of the issues. Is there even really an issue? What area of wilderness would someone classify as overbolted, or headed in that direction?

The bolts are MUCH less of an impact than the approach trail.

This is true that trails are more impact than bolts, but there is not going to be a Wilderness Climbers Trail document being written, there is going to be a Wilderness Bolting Management plan written for RR. Therefore all conversation really should be about the topic of concern.

Chad Stebbins wrote:The requirement for hand drilling takes care of the majority of the issues. Is there even really an issue? What area of wilderness would someone classify as overbolted, or headed in that direction? The bolts are MUCH less of an impact than the approach trail.

I don't think that any wilderness areas are overbolted. My problem is that climbers are asking for an exception to the philosophy behind Wilderness Areas. I think that exceptions for us opens up exceptions for other user-groups. I personally like the idea behind a wilderness area.

As for trails, foot traffic has been permitted in Wilderness Areas since they were established. That's not the issue at hand.

Eric, climbers have never asked to be excepted from the philosophy with which wilderness areas were intended.

Wilderness designations were put in place to keep lands from being destroyed by off-road vehicle abuses, mining, development, etc -- this has nothing to do with drilling fixed protection in rocks.

What has been unfortunate is to take a sound conservation mandate and bend it to fit a preservational approach so that technical climbers are attempted to be excluded for no reason other than others don't want to see us on their rocks.

Eric D wrote: I don't think that any wilderness areas are overbolted. My problem is that climbers are asking for an exception to the philosophy behind Wilderness Areas. I think that exceptions for us opens up exceptions for other user-groups. I personally like the idea behind a wilderness area. As for trails, foot traffic has been permitted in Wilderness Areas since they were established. That's not the issue at hand.

Having performed trail work and patrol of FS managed wilderness area, I disagree. However, it's not black and white, so opinions will vary greatly.

I see bolting more akin to off-trail foot traffic, which is not specifcally forbidden. Very similar, but with much less impact, to climber trails up peaks located in wilderness areas.

Mark Nelson wrote:Eric, climbers have never asked to be excepted from the philosophy with which wilderness areas were intended. Wilderness designations were put in place to keep lands from being destroyed by off-road vehicle abuses, mining, development, etc -- this has nothing to do with drilling fixed protection in rocks.

From the BLM webpage: "Wilderness areas are special places where the earth and its community of life are essentially undisturbed. They retain a primeval character, without permanent improvements"

I would call drilling bolts permanent, thus climbers that want to bolt in Wilderness Areas are asking for an exception.

Eric D wrote: From the BLM webpage: "Wilderness areas are special places where the earth and its community of life are essentially undisturbed. They retain a primeval character, without permanent improvements" I would call drilling bolts permanent, thus climbers that want to bolt in Wilderness Areas are asking for an exception.

I would call a climbing route a type of trail. Any type of trail system into wilderness areas could be interpreted to contradict the BLM statement. Certainly I would consider the bridging, check dams, and other trailwork I performed to be relatively permanent improvements. Where does the line get drawn? Do we remove all trails, do we limit access to only certain portions of the wilderness with established trail systems, who decides?

Mark Nelson wrote:Wilderness designations were put in place to keep lands from being destroyed by off-road vehicle abuses, mining, development, etc -- this has nothing to do with drilling fixed protection in rocks.

This is not the case. Wilderness designations have been and always will be meant to preserve wilderness areas in as pristine a state as possible relative to all human uses of the area. From the Wilderness Act itself:

"the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man"

The Act was explicit in regards to activities such as mining mechanized equipment but the passage from the act above is the predominant 'spirit' of the Act - that people should not permanently alter areas under its protection for their own purposes. That very much includes fixed pro and the Act explicitly prohibits power drills. And make no mistake about it, what's going on up in a bunch of the canyons in Red Rock is unrestrained rap-bolting with power drills, which more than a few folks in LAS very much intend to continue and would even like to find some way to legalize. Sanctioning individuals versus routes would essentially accomplish or at least provide cover for just that end.

Good thread.

A couple observations. First, the Wilderness Act is a gorgeous document and a quick read. It's also not very explicit.

Second, the controversy over bolts extends from this phrase, excerpted from the act: "except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act (including measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area."

For the government (USFS, BLM, NPS, etc) to regulate hand-drilled bolts or slings, they do so by calling these things "installations", as used in the context of the last phrase above.

Third: What's interesting is that bolts don't seem consistent with the other examples of structures or installations: motorboats, aircraft landing, or motor vehicles. These are a bit different than bolts.

Cheers,
Nate

My opinions:

1. Bolts are not permanent. They can be removed and the hole can be filled. Most times, finding a properly filled hole is pretty damn hard.

2. I'm disappointed that the government builds so many installations in Wilderness Areas, such as suspension bridges. I suppose these are for the "minimum requirements for the administration of an area", but minimum is a pretty vague word. I would say that these things interfere with the primordial character of the wilderness more than some bolts high on a cliff that passersby do not know exist.

3. I'm also disappointed with some of the permitting stuff. Many of the hunting camps located in Wilderness Areas are some of the most "permanent" installations I could imagine without needing a backhoe to build. Tent-cabins, trees felled, platforms built...all in the name of helping some guy from Texas shoot a moose.

4. Until issues like these are cleared up, I'm not disturbed by a climber hand-drilling bolts high up on some face.

Cheers,
Nate

Wilderness Act:

wilderness.net/index.cfm?fu…

Good thoughts.

I also see two issues at hand here. One is the idea of how "permanent" bolt placements are and whether or not that's consistent with the language in the Wilderness Act.

Second is the philosophy behind the Wilderness Act. Personally, I love the idea of keeping land as wild as absolutely possible. If I don't get to climb some rocks on that land, it is to me, a worthwhile "sacrifice" (if you can even call it that). I'm always a bit surprised when members of the climbing community argue to try and bend this philosophy to meet their wishes.

There IS a lot of WILD land in the United States. There is a lot of wilderness.

Red Rocks is not a wilderness. It is not wild land. Okay, you can give it that label. You can say that you want it to be true. But it is not true. Plain and simple. You can't make it be wild.

So the next best thing is to keep the impact from Las Vegas down. The BLM says a bolting plan is warranted. Okay, what will keep our bolting to a minimum? Permits? Licenses to bolt?

But let us imagine you were to find a TRUE wilderness area in the U.S. and you were to get your ass in there and place a bolt high up on some rock face. Who on this earth is ever going to know or care? I mean, those fucking Indians didn't have any respect when they started putting up their grafitti everywhere either. Fuckers. Ruining my wilderness experience.

John J. Glime wrote: But let us imagine you were to find a TRUE wilderness area in the U.S. and you were to get your ass in there and place a bolt high up on some rock face. Who on this earth is ever going to know or care? .

In southern Colorado we still have quite a lot of untouched rock in wilderness areas, some suprisingly close to roads, some not. Few will see our thoughtfully placed bolts unless they are climbers. I would never ask permission from anyone to bolt, especially in wilderness areas. I live by the adage don't place a bolt unless you really need it, and love climbing trad when possible. Jaaron

J. MAN wrote: In southern Colorado we still have quite a lot of untouched rock in wilderness areas, some suprisingly close to roads, some not. Few will see our thoughtfully placed bolts unless they are climbers. I would never ask permission from anyone to bolt, especially in wilderness areas. I live by the adage don't place a bolt unless you really need it, and love climbing trad when possible. Jaaron

Shhhhhhh!!! (secret areas dude)

Nothing to see hear folks..nothing but choss !!
There are NO vast, pristine canyons filled with
beautiful dakota sandstone, Granite or rhyolite cliffs
to bolt down here :)...

John J. Glime wrote:Red Rocks is not a wilderness. It is not wild land. Okay, you can give it that label. You can say that you want it to be true. But it is not true. Plain and simple. You can't make it be wild.

The canyons are in fact wild and wilderness - and should be left that way. Folks up back in up in them on extended rap-bolting sprees should either desist, otherwise, whatever measures necessary to reign them in should be instituted by the BLM.

Healyje wrote:The canyons are in fact wild and wilderness

One of us is delusional.

You know what would be cool? If we took all bridges, trail signs, and ranger cabins out of the wilderness. Got rid of the mining and livestock claims. Stopped letting horses and llamas and goats in.

The wilderness would start seeming a lot more wild...whether there were bolts or not.

Cheers,
Nate