BLM Seeks Public Comment on Rock Climbing Fixed Anchors in Red Rock Wilderness Areas

Rudeboy wrote: Allowing bolting to be legal will only increase the amount of unnecessary bolting. Simple as that. If you tell climbers they can place bolts they will. Routes with bolts have been goin up "underground" for years now. What do you sopose will happen when its legal? Less bolting with more "experienced" placements? Get real.

Will it really? Unnecessary as deemed by who? Have you ever been to Tuolumne Meadows? Bolting is legal there. I suppose that areas will have to, God forbid, form their own ethics and self-police.

Rudeboy wrote: There seems to be an epidemic per say with this sport, where "climbers" put an over emphasis on safety. Everybody needs to remember that this is an extreme sport called rock CLIMBING, not bolt clipping or the safe falling game.Its your choice to participate. If your convinced that the public and government/state need to cater to your need to be 100% safe from injury or death, your a confused individual and need to get a hobby that offers more safety.

Climbing is not an "extreme" sport. Perpetuating this notion does not work in our best interest. Your logic is fatally flawed in a multitude of respects, however, chief among these is your misconception about the role of government in the matter. The simple fact of the matter is that if placing fixed anchors were to occur legally (and with the exception of the continued ban of power drills in federally designated Wilderness Areas), that does not necessarily indicate that a potential FA party would bolt everywhere. Black Velvet canyon and the clashes that occurred over the years, and even some of the route names are a testament to the differences in climbing ethics that have been at odds, and cooperating, for decades. The FA of a route determines the experience that the individuals who will come up the route in the future will experience. Routes like Rock Warrior are a testament to this in your own back yard. Routes like the Bachar-Yerian are international test pieces that allow people to not do "bolt ladders" yet still utilize bolts for protection in areas that otherwise are not protectable. Essentially, what I am saying is that climbers can self-regulate and that in the event of a lift of the fixed anchor ban, I don't think bolts would pop up every five feet everywhere. The crags near Tahoe are a wonderful example of this.

Also, the BLM is a federal entity. the state of Nevada has nothing to do with this.

Rudeboy wrote:Bolts have their place in climbing but their existance has seemed to ruin the spirit of the sport. At the most a permit process with a hand drill only policy should be in place to keep down the amount of people drilling at any given time. Aswell as bolt spacing requirements.

The existence of bolts has ruined the spirit of the sport? Please explain. Have you climbed any runout testpieces before? Climb You Asked For It, Bachar-Yerian, Dike Route, etc. and see if your opinion on bolts has changed. Even if it doesn't, your personal opinion on climbing is just that - and the role of government shouldn't be such that they dictate HOW we climb. Now I am a proponent of having solid relationships with Land Managers, that is to say that we should keep a low profile, minimize all impacts as climbers - including visual (camouflage your damn bolts), but to say that bolt spacing should be determined by the government? Get real, dude. I do agree, however, that hand drilling in Wilderness is not only the only way to go - it is the law.

Rudeboy wrote: Bolting needs restrictions to help keep people from over bolting. Your safety is YOUR concern, stay off the mountains if you cant handle the height.

Is that so? Who is to determine what over, or under, bolting is? The mountains aren't our individual playgrounds to blanket with our individual ethic and force everyone else to it. The routes established by the FA parties are put up sometimes to make a statement (B-Y, You Asked For It, etc) and others are put up for the enjoyment of generations of climbers to come (PoD, DoWT, etc). I'm going to drop the trite statement that climbing is inherently dangerous, but your glorification of the danger of it certainly seems to indicate that you are more concerned with your own chest-beating of boldness as opposed to the enjoyment for the greater good and self-expression of an FA team.

Rudeboy wrote:Just for the record and contrarily to my previous comment, I am for it becomming legal. I believe these concepts should be considered and bolting should be under scrutiny. Bold ethics are a must and catering to non serious climbers creates the controversy in the first place. The climbing experience as a whole should not be compromised because some individuals lack climbing skill and strict bold ethics.

I am glad to see that you are contradicting yourself, admittedly, and that you feel that bolting should be legal and bolting policy should be under scrutiny. However, ethics are ethics - they are individualized. Please do me a favor and do some research on ethics, societal norms, and then re-visit how other climbing areas handle their own ethical issues. This should give you some perspective. Judging by your rhetoric you see yourself as a torch-bearer of "strict" ethics. Your definition of strict ethics may not be those of the sport climbers at the Gallery, nor of those who are quietly putting up routes in the backcountry. Let those putting up FA's, and who have put up the FA's, determine how they want to bolt (of course with the exception of power drilling in Wilderness, which isn't cool). Some modern folks have even wandered into 'new' territory of their own at Red Rock and elsewhere thinking that they had an FA, simply because someone was judicious and opted not to put in a bolt .

tom donnelly wrote:Whether or not climbers agree on these being "real" wilderness is not the issue. It is legally defined as wilderness.

In response, merely pointing out this area is not like traveling to a remote climbing destination or even something like The Diamond in Colorado. On the other hand it is not like climbing in Eldo which has bolting guidelines and a permit system. Incidentally the proposed bolting guidelines in Joshua Tree have not to date been implemented and bolting remains illegal.

I spent some time yesterday reading up on the issue. The Department of the Interior itself is conflicted in interpretation of the Wilderness Act guidelines and finds itself constrained by a law passed in 1964 (wilderness Act) to protect areas against encroachment by mining, cattle, timber interests. The language of the law itself was huge compromise taking several years to implement.

The Department of the Interior and their agencies has and continues to undertake installations in or at the borders of "wilderness" to promote and shape visitor use on a region by region basis in addition to a policy of habitat modification to increase visitor interest. Red Rocks comes under some additional guidelines because it is classified as a conservation area.

Seems the current "big concern" here is visitor use and biodiversity impact. And what we as climbers face is opposition by wilderness conservation groups like Sierra Club, Wilderness Watch, Friends of Red Rocks. Make no mistake; their agenda is to see Red Rocks, La Madre and Charleston closed to climbing. A concerted effort by these groups, to restrict climbing has been going on since 1998.

If you have been climbing around here for any length of time you will have noted the increase in climber numbers. Think about getting on a trade route on the weekend in the fall or the Red Rock Rendezvous.

One way to chisel at the issue and further their agenda is for them to get passed regulations allowing no new or replacement bolting and getting bolts classified as "installations". Once the fixed pro degrades to the point climbers would consider it unsafe then fewer and fewer climbers will go out into the wilderness to do the routes. This is already happening in parts of the US. see:

supertopo.com/climbing/thre…

The Access Fund counters that bolts are a necessary piece of climbing equipment for enjoying a wilderness experience; as endorsed by the Wilderness Act.

Somewhere in the middle, the BLM realizes the enormity and daunting aspect of policing bolting at Red Rocks, La Madre and Mt. Charleston areas; just as the NPS realized it was impractical to try to administer bolting in Joshua Tree with over 5000 documented routes, not to mention an estimated 35% undocumented routes.

tom donnelly wrote:The real impact of new routes, bolts, and anchors is in the number of additional climbers visiting each canyon. Even gear routes attract additional climbers, especially with so much better beta and descent info available these days. Climber levels have continued to increase despite the existing bolt restrictions. So my opinion is that we should loosen up the rules only a little, not enough to cause a lot of new routes, anchors, climbers, loss of wilderness experience, and impacts.

Changing the subject slightly;

what climber surveys in various parts of the country have found generally, is climbers go to destinations that:

are at or below their on-sight climbing ability

fit their risk quotient, with more experienced climbers generally preferring more risk and more remoteness

have some appealing aesthetic about the route or location

have the shortest possible approach taking all these prior factors into consideration

About 30% of the motivated climbing population climbs between 5.7 and 5.9

About 30% climbs between 5.9+ to 5.11

In the surveys, fixed protection or lack of fixed protection is a low ranked consideration.

______________________________________________________________________

I'm not going to say that moderate bolted sport routes do not influence where climbers congregate. It's obvious they do. But also consider if the Gallery or the Panty Wall was an hour and 35 minute approach with some 3rd class scrambling...how often would they get visited?

Maybe not as much...?

Now consider where the Wilderness boundary caronsite markers are on the various approach trails into the canyons. How many suitable cliffs are nearby those boundaries which could be new sites for grid bolted sport routes or over-bolted routes or any version of sport climbing?

Maybe Icebox Canyon or up behind Ragged Edges or in Lost Creek. Now think about the approach and weather exposure in contrast to cruising up to the Panty Wall, Stone Wall, Gallery or Black Corridor.

What would motivate you to do the approach to one of those areas inside the wilderness? Some "killer line" or maybe you're tired of queuing up at the Panty Wall or the feces at the Black Corridor. See how this is shaping up?

Not advocating anything...just saying and trying to get you to examine the motivations and think...

Weston L wrote: Your logic is fatally flawed in a multitude of respects, however, chief among these is your misconception about the role of government in the matter. .

Weston L wrote:Also, the BLM is a federal entity. the state of Nevada has nothing to do with this..

Federal entity sounds like gov to me.

Weston L wrote:The existence of bolts has ruined the spirit of the sport? Please explain. Have you climbed any runout testpieces before? Climb You Asked For It, Bachar-Yerian, Dike Route, etc. and see if your opinion on bolts has changed.

Easy, bolts created a saying in climbing, it goes something like "bomber". This prospect allowed would be wussies to do something they would not do without said bolts. Thus ruining the "hardman" spirit of climbing. Obviously this statement negades usage of runout bolts. Again IMO, dont let it go to your head.

Also I do dabble in free solo, at a grades I can handle. So yeah not gonna change my mind on the runout thing, I simply wont put my self on a route I cant handle. Which ties into the overbolting.....

Weston L wrote:but to say that bolt spacing should be determined by the government? Get real, dude.

I didnt say that the government should decide. I said there should be a requirement. That could be determined by whoever your heart desires. Such as no less than 8' on protection bolts other than anchors. Including ladders which could eaisly be spread.

Weston L wrote:Who is to determine what over, or under, bolting is? The mountains aren't our individual playgrounds to blanket with our individual ethic and force everyone else to it.

No such thing as under bolting smart guy. Overbolting is easily done, and everybody knows the hang dog crap im talkin about. Dont play dumb. Your the only one to try and force anything I merely suggest.

If the mountains arent our individual playgrounds then how does an FA team have ownership of a route or how its bolted? Smart guy. See your next quotes.

Weston L wrote:I am glad to see that you are contradicting yourself, admittedly, and that you feel that bolting should be legal and bolting policy should be under scrutiny.

I never contradicted myself once my dude. I came off as anti bolt and wanted to clarify that I am pro bolt where no other piece of gear is available. Mater of fact you contradict pretty routine.

Weston L wrote:However, ethics are ethics - they are individualized. Please do me a favor and do some research on ethics, societal norms, and then re-visit how other climbing areas handle their own ethical issues. This should give you some perspective. Judging by your rhetoric you see yourself as a torch-bearer of "strict" ethics. Your definition of strict ethics may not be those of the sport climbers at the Gallery, nor of those who are quietly putting up routes in the backcountry. Let those putting up FA's, and who have put up the FA's, determine how they want to bolt (of course with the exception of power drilling in Wilderness, which isn't cool). Some modern folks have even wandered into 'new' territory of their own at Red Rock and elsewhere thinking that they had an FA, simply because someone was judicious and opted not to put in a bolt .

Sounds like your gettin to buthurt from all this relax. My ultimate message is not to allow free reign with bolting. Other people that dont climb use these places aswell consider the rest of the world you selfish goober. "FA parties should determine How they want to bolt"? So your saying they take ownership of the route then? But "the mountains arent our individual playgrounds"? totally contradict yourself. Talk about forcing ethics. I just want people to consider my perspective before they make it legal. Ultimately the rock will crumble and Ill be dead by then so dont confuse.

Hmmm...

"Easy, bolts created a saying in climbing, it goes something like "bomber". This prospect allowed would be wussies to do something they would not do without said bolts. Thus ruining the "hardman" spirit of climbing. Obviously this statement negades usage of runout bolts. Again IMO, dont let it go to your head.
Also I do dabble in free solo, at a grades I can handle. So yeah not gonna change my mind on the runout thing, I simply wont put my self on a route I cant handle. Which ties into the overbolting....." - Rudeboy

Please give me a valid source that bolts created the term bomber? I see no correlation. Runouts are fine, but enabling the government or anyone else to force them upon people isn't cool. That is fine you aren't willing to put yourself on routes you can't handle, I don't know many people who do that to begin with. Pushing one's limits in a safe manner vs. climbing something you are confident at the grade of. Lots of people learn this lesson in Tuolumne Meadows or anywhere else that there are large runouts. Pushing yourself on your technical threshold vs. pushing your psychological threshold. That is a differentiation most can make for themselves.

Congrats that you dabble in free soloing, be careful on that sandstone as I am sure you know the holds can be a bit friable. How does that tie into over-bolting? You could just make a statement and do what Bachar did and solo all of the "over-bolted," or in JB's case, rap bolted routes to make a statement.

John Bachar wrote:You've got rap bolts, I've got rap music

source

Rudeboy wrote:I didnt say that the government should decide. I said there should be a requirement. That could be determined by whoever your heart desires. Such as no less than 8' on protection bolts other than anchors. Including ladders which could eaisly be spread.

Really?

Rudeboy wrote:policy should be in place to keep down the amount of people drilling at any given time. Aswell as bolt spacing requirements.

Policy, particularly when being used in a thread referring to the policy that a government entity is going to enact regarding fixed anchors in wilderness in an area all of us hold dear, usually is in reference to GOVERNMENT policy. Due to poor writing it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say at times, however, it was pretty clear you were inferring if not outright stating that the government should regulate bolt distances. Whether it is the government, the LVCLC, AF, etc. nobody should regulate the distances between bolts. Again, these FA's are someone expressing their vision for the route and for the rock - something anybody with a basic understanding of climbing history would be opposed to government or others intervening in (unless illegal), but you knew that already.

Further, how do you propose one work through a blank section? What about the classic 5.10+ A0 routes out there where a bolt ladder allows passage through blank sections? Do you see where your logic is crumbling as you say the rock will?

Rudeboy wrote:No such thing as under bolting smart guy. Overbolting is easily done, and everybody knows the hang dog crap im talkin about. Dont play dumb. Your the only one to try and force anything I merely suggest.

Rudeboy wrote:If the mountains arent our individual playgrounds then how does an FA team have ownership of a route or how its bolted? Smart guy. See your next quotes.

Sure, in the eye of the FA there is no such thing - fine. Overbolting can happen, but the FA put the route up - you don't have to clip the bolts, do ya Mr. Billy Bad Ass free soloist? The mountains are our individual playgrounds in a collective sense - that is to say that through consensus norms are established which we individually contribute to, and others establish routes for individuals enjoyment. Great groups like the ASCA and LVCLC replace bolts as becomes necessary and things get done both individually and collectively.

Rudeboy wrote:Sounds like your gettin to buthurt from all this relax. My ultimate message is not to allow free reign with bolting. Other people that dont climb use these places aswell consider the rest of the world you selfish goober. "FA parties should determine How they want to bolt"? So your saying they take ownership of the route then? But "the mountains arent our individual playgrounds"? totally contradict yourself. Talk about forcing ethics. I just want people to consider my perspective before they make it legal. Ultimately the rock will crumble and Ill be dead by then so dont confuse.

I take the issue of fixed anchors very seriously - taking away that kind of thing can be the start of a slippery slope to losing climbing access to the area and not seeing areas get developed to what they could be. What relevance does this pose to non-climbers? I already covered the minimizing of impact and being a good steward of the land, perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension skills as well as your writing skills. Not really that contradictory, if I wanted to chip holds or glue holds on the Black Velvet Wall - I shouldn't and can't (illegal + not ethical), since it isn't my own personal playground by virtue of these ethics and laws. However, the addition of bolts when permitted legally creates something that is accepted by the local ethics and fits with the societal norm in this area. I know, it requires a bit of thought, but perhaps sit down with a cold one and pontificate that. It might ease that dull pain you are feeling stemming from your head.

Hope you guys will bring all this energy to the BLM meetings.

All Killer No Filler wrote:^^Yeah, that's exactly what we need at the meeting. Arguing style as right/wrong and people referring to each other by "smart guy" to demonstrate the overwhelming sense of unity that the climbing "community" presents. I'm throwing in my 2 cents here because I won't be wasting my time at meetings; I leave the schmoozing to the unemployed and the self-appointed politicians. I've never gotten laid as a consequence of attending one of these things, therefore the average library run has more value to me than a "sharing" session. Library girls tend to be pretty well-groomed, as well, unlike climber assemblies. Bring your nose clips, ladies. "Rudeboy", believe me, I don't have any reason to tell you this other than what I've read on this site: your attitude towards bolts is pretty juvenile. I had the same thing going on when I moved out here, I'd never placed one in my life and didn't have any interest in doing so. The more time you spend climbing routes put up by people who are actual, need-their-heads-examined badasses, the less incentive you will have to spew invective against inanimate objects that aren't "good" or "evil", they're a tool that can be part of legitimate expression of adventure. Weston, who I don't know from Adam, either, is right on the money when he brings up routes like Rock Warrior. Minimalism is a style choice, not a legal issue. If you think Sesame Street sucks, I'm sure you're not alone. I never bothered with the place, didn't sound like fun to me. To someone with different tastes, maybe it's Mecca. The bottom line is this, and I think Tom Beck pretty much laid this out politely, I'd like to say it less politely, with more emphasis: Red Rock is hardly a wilderness when compared to places where you can't see the lights from the major metropolitan city down the street at night, but it is unique and special and deserves to be protected. The question is, who can do so? For the majority of the last half a decade, I've been at Red Rock three days a week, minumum. I have not once met a climbing ranger while out climbing. If someone has a credit card, can read instructions, and has the motivation to do so, they can go out and bolt a 2000 foot sport route on Mount Wilson. Has this happened? Red Rock is essentially a climber-managed area with regard to bolts. Occasionally, offensive bolting occurs, and is mostly removed, sooner or later. And a lot of times, even if climbers almost universally agree that a particular bolt, permadraw, anchor, route etc is completely stupid, it usually stays up if it isn't too much of an eyesore. Despite doom-and-gloom predictions about bolting fiesta madness happening the day the ban is lifted, I think very few people who aren't a) local, b) doing FAs on a regular basis, and c) hanging out at the shop all the time talking trash even have any idea how many new routes go in on an average year. Some of the oldest and most experienced climbers I meet in the park bolt with an abandon that makes my head spin, often on established routes. It's not always the young punks screwing it up for the rest of us. Some of the old fogeys screw up on a regular basis, too. Not that I don't love all you geriatric SOBs, I hope I'm out getting at it ten years from now, let alone in my 60s, 70s, or 80s. The bottom line is that what happens at Red Rock stays at Red Rock; when catapults are outlawed, only outlaws will have catapults, and calling people "smart guy" is pretty rude and immature, and I hold multiple doctorate degrees in Rude and Immature myself, speaking from experience here. For the Miss Cleo flash-forward psychic reading prediction on the events of the forthcoming meeting, keep reading: People will talk. Less people will listen. Stupid suggestions will be made. Great suggestions will be thought of but not brought up because some loud dipshit is busy pounding the podium about how great he is/how terrible some other person/group is. People will squirm in their seats. Farting will occur, both verbal and the posterior variety. People will leave wondering what the next step is, and it's....more beaurocratic foot dragging, despite the best intent and efforts of a few people that care and are good at their jobs. Meanwhile, out in the canyons, someone will be placing a bolt, wishing that the first ascentionist placed a bolt, cursing the first ascentionist for placing a bolt, or chopping a bolt. And as the sands of the hourglass, these are the days of our lives. It's a soap opera, in other words. Tune in next time for updates on the sixteen dozen multipitch sport routes that STILL don't exist after nearly fifty years of known climbing at Red Rock. Take Rude's advice and relax, everyone. I hear the library's open...

seems like this was written by a self appointed politician to me

do you also not vote in favor of bikini contests at casinos?

seems like this was written by a self appointed politician to me t

AMEN ! Nice'n concisely put

Holier than thou (and the rest of all humanity... as usual)

My letter to the Scoping Committee. See if you can get on-board. Stop flaming each other please.
______________________________________________________________________

re:
Resource Management Plan Amendment to consider new management decision for permanent fixed anchors within BLM portions of La Madre Mountain and Rainbow Mountain Wilderness areas of RRC
_________________________________________________________________________________________

To Whom it may concern,

With a few regional specific modifications I endorse the proposed guidelines of the Access Fund as regards bolts and bolt placements in the Red Rocks and La Madre wilderness classified areas.

Access Fund Guidelines:

Allow hand drilling
Allow replacement of old bolts 1:1 without prior approval
Allow placement of new bolts without prior approval in any un-protectable section within a route with removable anchors for safety and in descending and emergencies.

I think it is important to incorporate into the management decision:

1. Climbing is a historic and appropriate use of wilderness
2. Some level of fixed anchor use is necessary to climb safely and fixed anchors should be classified in the same category as any piece of climbing protection equipment
3. Less restrictive policies are best

Harkening back to the guidelines of the Negotiated Rule-making Committee

What type of rock climbing-related equipment should be allowed in wilderness areas and under what circumstances should certain types of equipment be allowed?

My Comments:

Any and all removable gear should be permitted. All equipment required for multipitch and big wall climbing should be permitted. Leaving of fixed lines and gear or water stashes is not endorsed but is not disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What process should be used to decide whether the insertion or removal of a fixed anchor should take place and who should be party to the decision?

My Comments:

Placement of bolts, since they are a piece of safety equipment to ensure climber safety, should be placed at the sole discretion of the first ascent party. This includes belay/rappel anchors used for subsequent descent. No rules should be made to dictate the type or style of bolts or their method of installation, but certain guidelines suitable for Red Rocks sandstone and La Madre limestone should be included following the recommendations of the American Safe Climbing Association.

It should be acknowledged that the technology of anchors is evolving and improving and thus no specific hardware standards are set.

It should be acknowledged that aesthetic climbing lines can exist in Red Rock sandstone and La Madre limestone which utilize natural features yet which do not lend themselves to the use of removable protection. For these routes bolting is allowed as connecting an “un-protectable section within a route that is otherwise protect-able with removable anchors”.

It should be acknowledged from an engineering viewpoint, that, as is well know, mechanical bolt placements fail in sandstone due to stress cracking of the rock surrounding the hole. A hand drilled hole tends to be elliptical in shape, concentrating the stress in a shear vector directly in line with the anticipated loading, thus leading to more un-assessable and pre-mature failure than a power drilled hole, which tends to be concentric. Therefore, while power bolting with a cordless hammer/drill in the wilderness could be interrupted as prohibited by the Wilderness Act of 1964, power bolting with a cordless hammer/drill results in a more enduring and safer piece of protection, which could be endorsed by the use clauses and the spirit of the Wilderness Act.

The impact on biodiversity from newly created bolted or mixed lines in the canyons of Red Rocks and the La Madre's is minimal and would be the same for any popular or potentially popular route which utilized all removable protection. Descent anchors are often placed on popular lines to facilitate descent. This actually reduces the impact which would occur from a descent trail.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the impact on the BLM or Forest Service and the climbing industry if the agency assumes an active role in regulating use, insertion, and removal of fixed anchors?

My Comments:

The BLM should not be engaged in bolt removal nor should the BLM contract with NGO contractors to remove bolts unless those bolts are determined to specifically adversely impact archeological sites or existing springs by directing climbing traffic to those areas. Should the BLM take an active role then possibilities for liability becomes a consideration.

What could be done is for the BLM to form an Ad Hoc odd numbered advisory committee consisting of guides from the the guiding services operating in this area. This committee (a "star chamber" if you will) could then be consulted for suggestions and advice and in certain circumstances asked to vote on proposed actions. How those actions might be implemented should be beyond the purview of the BLM, thus isolating the BLM from litigation.
----------------------------------------------------

Suggestions:

Climber surveys in other parts of the United Sates have come to some conclusions regarding climber visitation and climber impact;

It was found roughly 35% of motivated climbers (climbing 50 or more days annually) climb between 5.7 and 5.9 and about 30% climb between 5.9+ and 5.11.

Climbers go to destinations that are at or below their on-sight climbing ability
Climbers go to an area which matches their risk quotient, with more experienced climbers preferring more remote areas and tolerating more risk.
Climbers go to an area which has some appealing aesthetic
Climbers go to an area with the shortest possible approach taking all prior factors into account.
Fixed anchors or lack of fixed anchors was a low ranked consideration.

Because Red Rocks and Mt. Charleston are know internationally for their bolted "sport routes" I believe these survey conclusions need to be evaluated specifically for this area. To that end the BLM could call for grant proposals by PhD candidates to study climber visitation patterns throughout the region and in conjunction with the outdoor industry fund a comprehensive research document.
--------------------------------------------------------------

It has been proposed that some form of permitting process for installation of new bolts be implemented. The American Safe Climbing Association has an informal process whereby a climber is vetted by his peers for knowledge and skill before hardware is given to him/her to replace existing bolts. The vetting process is not perfect, is an honor system, and has been abused, as any process may be. Yet by and large it seems to work. Old bolts are being replaced and the ASCA continues to receive donations and hardware. What would motivate a local climber to apply for a permit to drill in Red Rocks and La Madre wilderness? And how would that permit be constrained or would it have any constraints? Given the current considerable costs of installing a 95 ft. sport route, what would further motivate a climber to become permitted or registered?

I believe this permitting idea is unworkable and inappropriate at this time and should be shelved for consideration at a later time.

All Killer No Filler wrote:the average library run has more value to me than a "sharing" session. Library girls tend to be pretty well-groomed

-------------------

I went to the library today. It was disappointing. Maybe wrong library or wrong timing. Which one do you go to Killis?

Thomas Beck wrote: ------------------- I went to the library today. It was disappointing. Maybe wrong library or wrong timing. Which one do you go to Killis?

http://vegasadultsuperstore.com/store/content/10/Store-Locations/

just a guess

Your girlfriend topless.

"The question is, who can do so? For the majority of the last half a decade, I've been at Red Rock three days a week, minumum. I have not once met a climbing ranger while out climbing."

Come now Killis... I ran into you more than a couple of times out there.

Uh oh watch out! Earth shattering info pouring in. Maybe you guys should look up the word disregard, so you could better understand my standpoint. So whos next with the reiterations of simple and aforementioned perceptions? Stir the pot hommie.

Comments will be accepted until the end of today, 11/19/12. Written letters must be postmarked by today. Email to rrc_fixedanchors@blm.gov

Thanks,
Nick Walendziak
Red Rock Canyon NCA
4701 N. Torrey Pines Dr
Las Vegas, NV 89130