Cochise Stronghold & Wilderness Designation

No to Wilderness .... Look at the history of just what will go down if this happens. Climbers and others will loose out to the Federal Government.

I have seen it before......

WILDERNESS is not created with a stroke of a pen.

There is a lot of speculation here regarding what might or might not happen.

It may be worth getting Eric Murdoch involved and getting some facts about bolting policies in most wilderness areas. I don't think that there is enough information out there for people to have informed opinions.

Here's my rant if anyone cares:

My natural tendency is to want to support wilderness designation here--even if it means fewer bolts, fewer opportunities to climb, etc.

But, I am shocked to find myself leaning toward opposing wilderness designation. The bottom line for me as others have alluded to is that I just don't see any reason to trust federal agencies not to act in an arbitrary and capricious manner here, whether in writing policies and regulations, enforcing them, exercising their discretion and authority, or acting in anything approaching a timely manner. I have to grapple with the DOJ and DHS on a daily basis and have lost all faith in the feds acting in a reasonable manner. In terms of climbing, there are too many negative examples of knee-jerk reactions by federal agencies in these kind of situations. To name just a few:

• Red Rocks, described by John Wilder above;
• Arches and the Delicate Arch fiasco in 2006. Sure, what Dean Potter did was stupid, but the reaction to what ONE CLIMBER did was out of all proportion, especially given the tourist shit-show that Delicate Arch is on a near-daily basis. A complete ban on fixed anchors and even a ban on climbing were apparently in play although fortunately neither happened.
• The Superstitions, as described in other posts. Obviously climbers bear some blame in all these situations but again, the way the federal agencies have handled them does not inspire me with any confidence.
• etc. etc.

There's too much of a double-standard. The federal agencies can use power equipment to fix hikers' trails. I have seen the feds helicoptering mountain goats out of wilderness in Colorado so that they don't bother the sheep. On Pusch Ridge they kill mountain lions that eat the sheep. What kind of "wilderness" is that? Hell, the Pusch is not wilderness, there's a strip mall that you can practically spit on from the top of Table Mountain. Real wilderness in the lower 48 is the Gila, or the Wind Rivers, Kings Canyon/Sequioa, North Cascades, various parts of Montana, etc. Even something like Baboquivari or the Santa Teresas around here. Smaller/more developed areas like Cochise should still get protection though--what about permanent designation as a Wild Backcountry Zone? That isn't an option on SACC's poll.

Regardless of whether you think there are too many bolts in Cochise, those routes are there, and people enjoy them. It doesn't make any sense to have a bunch of useless bolts dotting the rock in 30 or 40 years. What kind of wilderness climbing experience would that be? No one is going to replace all those bolts by hand. No one is going to remove them either. At this point the area is what it is.

Bottom line: I believe we should make clear that, in general, climbers support wilderness and wild backcountry areas. But we won't do so at the expense of arbitrary, ill-conceived decisions that adversely affect or even outright prevent our enjoyment of such areas.

Just to clarify the Stronghold is currently designated as Wild backcountry and Developed Recreation in the campgound area on the Eastside.

Eric Murdoch has been very active with SACC and is involved in guiding the conversation that will happen this weekend.

There are lots of discussions that need to happen, among climbers, with Forest Service, with other user groups, with mother nature.

BUT Shannon, Scott, Alex, Kate, and Emily cannot do it all by themselves. We are demanding alot of them right now. Who am I to now ask these 5 people to take on this immense task and correct years of inaction while lots of us just went climbing. Even now, people want to "just go climbing".

There have been people in the shadows who I am just learning about now. Again, thank you.

The stewardship committee has taken on the challenge. There were volunteers for the SACC social at the park. Thank you all!

The board is currently spending HOURS meeting multiple times a month for the SACC general, then the board, then with other agencies. But they all have full time jobs.

It took 20 hours of work for the SACC board to just write SACC's call to action. Then they need quorum. Then they need to process all of the feedback from all who respond.

Please join SACC and take on an area that interests you: peregrines, safety, policy, communications officer.

Or put together a talk for a SACC meeting so we can all learn about an area of interest.

Then we could clear up speculation, get more information, and present ourselves as a valid, knowledgeable user group instead of the front we have presented to the public on these forums for too long.

Anyone????

I have climbed in the Stronghold for 20 plus years. With the way the Feds handle things, especially the examples cited by Charles Vernon, I would oppose wilderness designation for the area. I pay taxes towards the use & maintenance of the federal forests and from what I see here in AZ, the forests are so completely mismanaged in many ways...perfect example is the complete lack of fire management techniques which result in huge fires across the state. I guess I'm selfish, but if I'm paying taxes, I'd like to use the forests for things I enjoy doing. The forest service's goal is to regulate the average user out of the forests completely. I've had dealings with the feds in the USFS and they generally want to limit user access because they are often times some what lazy and this way the less users using the forests, the less work they need to do.

Want an example of poor USFS management, then just take a look at the filty pig stye that Fossil Springs has become. USFS has not done a thing to bring the area into some state of cleanliness. All they need to do is charge an access fee and dirt bags will stop going there. Also, here's an example of USFS over-reach: in Sedona the USFS will tell you verbally and with signage that you must have a Red Rocks Pass to park and hike/mtn bike etc, even though a federal court has ruled that they cannot charge someone just to hike and park. But if you ask any USFS in the area, they will tell you that you must pay. I just don't trust people who may lie to me to get some coins for the area.

Another point of data collection that would be useful to future discussions would be to see a comparison of the amount of fixed hardware in the Stronghold compared to other areas of it's size.

Again, lets think twice about our public apperance, our language, and our behaviour on public forums such as this. Climbers are a well educated bunch, lets draw from our community and start changing so we can all keep doing what we love to do....."just go climbing".

It's good to see that folks are interested in this issue. After reading through the comments on this thread, there are a couple points that I would like to address. I am the policy director for the Access Fund and may have a slightly different perspective. I will not be able to attend the workshop due to other AF responsibilities. I plan to debrief with some of the attendees in order to help develop a strategy for moving forward. Remember, this type of advocacy has no end and the time to comment is 'early and often'. This has been a tough lesson in southern Arizona.

1. Designated wilderness prohibits the use of power drills. New bolts, drilled by hand, may or may not be allowed. Replacement may or may not be allowed (although it usually is). Sometimes bolting activities need some form of permit, sometimes not. It is difficult to predict which wilderness climbing management protocols the Coronado NF would adopt. It is also really important to note that the FS does not have an official national-level policy on wilderness climbing like the NPS policy:DO#41 . But it will. The FS has been developing a similar policy (FSM2320) that should be issued within the year. FSM2320 will outline the general guidelines for how the FS will manage climbing in designated wilderness areas.

2. We may be able to look at NPS wilderness climbing management (with regard to DO#41) to help predict how the FS could manage climbing in their wilderness areas. There are some good examples and some restrictive ones. North Cascades National Park and Lake Mead NRA are examples of really bad outcomes for climbers. This is not to say that Coronado NF would adopt such restrictive policy, but it is important to understand the potential risks of wilderness designation. The benefits are that the land is protected from a variety of impacts and will be protected, by law, in perpetuity.

3. If the Dragoons is proposed as a wilderness, the FS will manage the land as a 'land with wilderness characteristics' (LWC) regardless of whether it makes its way through the legislative process and Congress passes the bill into law. There are many incorrect assumptions about LWC. Land managers can choose how to manage LWC and do not have to manage the land to the standards of the Wilderness Act of 1964. LWC is not a Wilderness Study Area. A land manager may choose to manage the land as designated wilderness, but they may also choose to allow actions (like power drills for replacement) that are prohibited in designated wilderness. The risk associated with LWC is that the regulations are at the discretion of the land management. That discretion may also benefit the climbing community. If the Dragoons are proposed for wilderness designation in the final FS Plan, the climbing community needs to foster a strong relationship with the FS in order to allow the best chances for a fair and suitable policy on fixed anchors and power drills for replacing bolts.

4. One thing that has not been discussed on this thread is how all this will affect existing Coronado NF wilderness climbing areas and how the relationships (with wilderness advocates) that the climbing community builds, or destroys, will affect future climbing conditions at Mt. Lemmon etc. When the Coronado NF starts to develop their Wilderness Management Plan for existing wilderness, will climbing advocates remember the great relationship they have with the climbing community or will they remember something different and advocate against climbing? Will our behavior and actions now affect future climbing management elsewhere? If we support Dragoons wilderness, perhaps with a modified boundary, might wilderness advocates support less restrictive wilderness policy with respect to fixed anchors and other wilderness climbing management issues? Can we get the best outcome through well-developed diplomacy or does the climbing community need to be more aggressive? How will our advocacy approach today serve our future needs?

I agree with many of Charles Vernon's comments. We can not go back in time. We have an incredible climbing resource that also will need 1000's of bolts replaced in a few decades or else we will have a big problem. The FS needs to understand this conundrum and recognize the climbing community as successful stewards (note cleanups and falcon monitoring) instead of potentially thinking we are a bunch of reckless, anti-environment, maniacs. That is what the folk who are gracious enough to attend the Saturday meeting need to impart.

Regards,
Erik Murdock

Posting my comments to SACC (via facebook then supplemented via e-mail). I'll note that some observations are addressed above. Thanks to Access Fund post and perspective in particular, and Scott, Scott, Geir, and others. One supplement to their comments: In this case, there isn't much time for development of better relationships before a recommendation is made, so there is certainly a lot of risk & uncertainty in all of the approaches, wherever management discretion gets involved, and with new USFS climbing policies pending.

---
Scott, Geir,

I just had a very pleasant, informative, and constructive 45-60 minute conversation with Yolanda Begay at USFS regarding the Dragoons PWA, the process, and the options available. Below is what I just posted on the SACC Facebook page. It was long for fb, but probably a decent amount of nuance and context missing that I would be happy to share if you would like to speak to me directly.

I think the key thing is bringing solutions -- as well as consideration as to what those might be, including perhaps requesting a slightly less restrictive designation -- such as "Managed for Wilderness Characteristics" or "Wild Backcountry". We need to learn a little more about, but she described them for me, and these might provide desired protections without the rigidity of a congressional designation. This would balance a number of climbers' concerns about getting protection vs challenging restrictions. I think it is also worth noting that it sounds like these designations often take a long time -- as well as congressional advocates (and Arizona is somewhat lacking in such environmental advocates) -- and so there may be a natural window for the maintenance of anchors which results, alleviating a big concern we all have about old anchors; apparently Mt. Graham has been on the recommended list for 20+ years. (Future anchors is a different question.)

Some key notes, options, and ideas:

- Alt designations, as a tool: "Managed for Wilderness Characteristics" or "Wild Backcountry"
- How to manage the hundreds of formations with a map "polygon" change is a complicated issue
- Could we request something like: "Wilderness Designation, excepting that above [20'] in height on rock formations [larger than 100' in width or height] will be 'Managed for Wilderness Characteristics'?
- Requesting that the current USFS plans and docs submitted, evolved, etc, document these concepts & facts:
a) recognize climbing and climbers as a long historied, minimal impact primary user and steward of the area.
b) climbing use includes a history of fixed anchors, which historically have been minimal, due to abundance of natural anchors. (Which shall be preserved and maintained.)
(Trying to think of ways to document a history in the process and deflect future risks of regulations, under whatever designation. It may be worth, if proposing future guidelines and regulatory approaches, to propose that the future guidelines (not rules) are for
- It may be that a formal agreement can be reach such that SACC is the supporting group helping govern, influence, maintain anchors and consideration of future actions. (Probably best to lay a foundation soon establishing SACC (or other?) as their public partner re: climbing in that Ranger district, so that are present and influential if those less desirable conversation later occur.)
- Probably another 10-20 years before next plan revision, but all USFS plan revisions will mandate a review of potential wilderness areas (so this will come up again, but it will be a while.)

- Their action will occur with the finalization of the larger Coronado plan in the next (roughly) 30 days. It will be a recommendation, not a decision.

Will shoot other notes or ideas out, but feel to reach out.

----
What I posted on SACC FB site:

"Howdy all. I just spent a very constructive, positive hour on the phone w/ Yolynda Begay at USFS regarding Dragoons PWA, the meeting tomorrow, and the process at hand. Fundamentally, I presented that many climbers have a conflicted relationship with the proposal, due to desire to protect a cherished resource vs anchor-related concerns (which I elucidated for her) and were concerned by minimal recognition of climbers & climbing resources in the USFS materials.

In short, with the public comment period closed on the larger plan, they have ~30 days in which to recommend (or not) some/all of SIX add'l areas for wilderness status. This will be the public process for that (all 6). Dragoons is on the list due to very high volume of requests for consideration; would have perhaps barely been excluded on other merits.

They sound open to alternative solutions and she repeatedly requested that ideas are brought and I flushed out some new potential approaches as well as considerations with approaches (given the numerous formations and terrain complexity). Solutions might include: reductions of the proposed map polygon; alternate and desirable protective designations, such as "Managed for Wilderness Characteristics" and "Wild Backcountry"; perhaps even other creative ideas, like perhaps above-20' on rock face treated different or requesting a designation earliest-date to allow for anchor maint. & upgrades). *Note: She mentioned that the 'Super' had internally commented on openness to tweaking the map and that this was somewhat unprecedented; this is a positive indicator. She also mentioned positive dynamics and recent history with 3rd parties to work together on trail maintenance, issue monitoring, etc -- and that the new Douglas district Ranger is dynamic, great to work with, etc, and we should reach out. On the flip side, it seems clear that knowledge of the climbing presence there (at least at Tucson office) was minimal.

The meeting format will be SHORT (15-20 minutes per area), BUT they will have envelopes in which you can leave written comments. Please consider bringing or drafting written thoughts there for deposit as no other formal comment vehicle.

Thanks SACC for heads up & great info."

Even if you are just new to climbing or don't think you have anything to add. Please still come Saturday.

The Access Fund has recommend that the more people we can get there the better. Ask questions, just show you care. What ever we do, lets do it together!

Can we get an idea of who will be going?

1)Scott (SACC representative)
2)Alex Brummer (SACC representative)
3)Me

I am confused by the previous post about the conversations with Ms. Begay at the Forest Service. She has informed others that the designation of the Stronghold was already Wild Backcountry. Do we need the Forest Service to clarify the status?

Please see Eric's post regarding what it can mean when an area is "managed for Wilderness Characteristics":
"FS will manage the land as a 'land with wilderness characteristics' (LWC) regardless of whether it makes its way through the legislative process and Congress passes the bill into law. There are many incorrect assumptions about LWC. Land managers can choose how to manage LWC and do not have to manage the land to the standards of the Wilderness Act of 1964. LWC is not a Wilderness Study Area. A land manager may choose to manage the land as designated wilderness, but they may also choose to allow actions (like power drills for replacement) that are prohibited in designated wilderness. The risk associated with LWC is that the regulations are at the discretion of the land management. That discretion may also benefit the climbing community. If the Dragoons are proposed for wilderness designation in the final FS Plan, the climbing community needs to foster a strong relationship with the FS in order to allow the best chances for a fair and suitable policy on fixed anchors and power drills for replacing bolts. "

This designation is a wild card.

Changing boundaries will change the Forest Services ability to manage the area. If you look at the map, excluding the Rockfellows to WhaleDome would completely divide the proposed area which would then have it not meet the area needed for Wilderness designation.

This option and the negotiation of power drills would be setting a HUGE precedence in Forest Service management. I guess all of the "no faith in government" people and I don't really see that happening.

We need the Stronghold to stay as Wild Backcountry…at least until we have a fair chance of understanding what other options mean.

I'll be going. I want, if nothing else, to make sure that the Forest Service recognizes that climbers are a primary user group here, and that we want to be stewards of the land. I feel that is one of the biggest messages we can send to land managers in order to help climbing in So. AZ for the long term.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, everyone!

See you there Eric,

You bring up a good point.

There will be breakout groups at the meeting where you will be talking with different members of the Forest Service.

Please talk about climbers being stewards of the land

I will be brief as it has been a tremendously long day.

I tried at length to switch my schedule to attend tomorrow's meeting. I am sorry to say that I could not arrange the day off, but I am encouraged to see that several climbers will be attending. I plan on talking with Yolanda early next week so that I can share my thoughts. If a couple of like-minded people want to join me you are welcome.

In conversations with Erik and many others, one point that has been particularly troubling for me is that Wilderness Designation would have uncertain effects on climbing in the Stronghold. While the idea of hand-drilling only in the Stronghold has appeal to me, the rest of the uncertainties that come along with the package do not. The FS does not have a national-level policy on wilderness climbing yet. When they do, who knows how the Coronado FS will implement it? Simply going along with the proposed designation, without knowing precisely what it will entail, seems foolhardy.

Erik's fourth point above carries equal weight for me. Our approach to this will affect our relationships with multiple other groups, including the FS. I think we're all on the same page that we need to identify ourselves as the biggest user group of the area inside that polygon. I also think we're clear that we've got to be plugged in to all of these discussions from now on.

However, we are arriving into this discussion at a late hour with a message that will likely derail years of many other people's efforts. They are probably not going to be happy about it. Let's be careful in how we approach this.

Thanks,
Geir

Well stated, Geir! It's a bummer that we're late into this discussion. Let's make sure we give it a chance at connecting with new friends! Climbers are probably the best stewards of a place like Cochise!

Thanks to all who attended!

I really appreciate you taking time out of your schedules to attend this critical meeting. As you could see, it was really important. As you could see, I think even the Forest Service was even impressed with our numbers.

I think we did about as good as we could do.

Now, let us see what happens.

Keep your fingers crossed.

Thanks again!

Scott Mc

+1000 Scott. The number of climbers who showed up was really impressive, thanks to all who came out. As today's meeting demonstrated, it's really important for citizens to be involved in this process every step of the way. Yes, it's too bad climbers weren't involved from the get-go duing scoping, but we are now, and must continue to be present in all pertinent USFS projects into the long-term.

Do we know how to further nurture a relationship with the land manager and the conservation organizations who are working to expand wilderness? It seems like that is a good step to becoming recognized as a user group in the future.

I know that not all of us are in favor of more wilderness and many of us are not in favor of wilderness at the expense of climbing freedoms. I appreciate people's concerns about the unknown actions of future land managers (as has happened in some Wilderness areas). There is always risk of the unknown future. There is also risk of losing access without a Wilderness Designation if the land use changes due to development, mining or something else. The future is always unknown.

I truly hope that, despite our varied concerns and values, we can promote a productive relationship with other organizations whose goals generally coincide with ours. I'm not sure if we came across to the F.S. or conservation advocates as a bunch of self serving a-holes or as a concerned user group that wants to be part of the future conversations regarding outdoor recreation. I hope it's the second of those two.

Special HUGE thanks to Scott McNamara and Erik of the Access Fund for their guidance, and to the SACC board (and Tanya) for all of their work. I'm glad to be a member of those two organizations!

Hey Eric,

Rod Mondt, from the Sky Island Alliance, talked at like the 4th SACC meeting. There are a few SACC members that have contacts there and the conversations are continuing.

At the end, did you see me talking to Mike Quigley? He is the Arizona State Director for The Wilderness Society and he really wants to work with us.

Shannon Maitland, Andy Bennett, and Scott Ayers met with him to initially look at maps and define climbing areas of interest and they are meeting again this Tuesday.

He presented some interesting ideas about conservation area designation and is following up about the "minimal necessary tools" idea we heard about today. Lots of great things happening and Alex is writing a brief for SACC about todays meeting, stay tuned!

www.saccBeta.com

There were also some questions about how to join SACC. You can go to the above address and click on the link to donate. The suggested donation is $20 for the year.

Thanks, for the info, Tanya! I'm glad you made contact with the Wilderness Society!

I didn't see Rod at the meeting Saturday, but maybe I just missed him. I sent an email to Louise from SIA (who was at the meeting). I've worked with her in the past as an SIA member and volunteer. Hopefully we can make some friends, as both SIA and the Wilderness Society are very well organized groups.

One other thing I took away from a conversation I has with one of the FS Rangers after the meeting was that the timing of this meeting a weekend after the big trash cleanup reflected well on us as a user group. Maybe she was blowing smoke up my @ss but she seemed genuinely excited about the prospect of the FS and the climbing community having more open lines of communication and the opportunity to work together on common goals. While as a user group we may be new to the game we have already made a positive impression on some of the FS personnel through the huge numbers who showed up for the Mt Lemmon clean up and then again at this meeting. Both of which would not have happened without the SACC so big props the them (soon to be us).

The important thing now will be to continue to nurture our newly formed relationship and stay engaged. If only 1 climber shows up to the next meeting on this issue we would probably look quite foolish. However, I feel that enough of us are now plugged into the process now that no meetings on this issue will quietly slip by. Thanks again to everyone who took the time out of their weekend to attend this meeting.

Remember when sex was safe and climbing was dangerous? If so then you probably remember when climbers and mountaineers were actually conservationists and wilderness advocates. People like John Muir, David Brower, Royal Robbins, Yvon Chouinard, and to a varying degree virtually everyone that was climbing in the 60s and 70s. But no longer it seems, judging from the self-centered, narcissistic tone of the posts in this forum. To put it bluntly many of the contributors here are trying to decide which is more important: Wilderness protection for thousands of acres of magnificent, unspoiled, and unique country, or the continued privilege to bring their Bosch into these mountains and drill holes in the rock to create even more shitty little sport climbs. A no brainer right?; but most seem to be choosing the Bosch option. "From my cold dead fingers …"

Scott McNamara writes, "I suspect that the whole purpose of wilderness designation is in part to protect the minority user." That's not what I think. The purpose of Wilderness designation is to protect unspoiled land from the depredations of humans be they mounted on ORVs or wielding chainsaws or motorized drills.

Jonathan Swift wrote, "There is no piece of wisdom in fewer hands than knowing when to have done." This wisdom is certainly not in the hands of Scott McNamara, Robbie Mackley, Nick Martel, "Christian", "cochise climbing", Guy Keesee, John Wilder, Charles Vernon, "Tradster", "accessfund-eric”, who want to keep up the drilling in the Stronghold. If you want to clip bolts, Arizona has no shortage of industrial climbing wastelands. Go to them and leave the Stronghold unimpaired. More than a lifetime of convenient clipping awaits you at Virgin River Gorge, Queen Creek Canyon, Superstition Mountains, Jack's Creek Canyon, Mount Lemmon. And if you want to crank more in your next reincarnation come on over to New Mexico's Datil Tower, Cochiti Mesa, the explosively-developing Jemez Mountains, Palomas Peak, Sitting Bull Falls. One way to answer Scott's plaintive query, "Are there enough densely bolted routes in the Stronghold right now?", is: "No there are never enough bolts as evidenced by their exponential proliferation everywhere in the world. We will not rest until every cliff is developed, every ego, searching for immortality in a guidebook is satisfyingly stroked. Routes will be safe for a new generation of children who, learning their climbing indoors from competitive parents, won't be expected to learn the arcana of anchors, protection, self-reliance, common sense, those things that used to be the basis of mountaineering." But that would be the wrong answer.

One of the characteristics of on-line bolt forums such as this is the pro-bolters’ use of disingenuous arguments to support their position. In this forum that particular red herring is the concern that in the future when bolts decay and become unsafe they will need to be replaced using power drills. It follows that if motorized drills are banned then an unsafe condition will result that has no remedy. (Try arguing against the “safety card” in modern America). Well the American Safe Climbing Association (ASCA) has replaced thousands of bolts by hand in wilderness areas. Why should Stronghold climbers expect the convenience of power drilling?

Another characteristic of these forums is that they are populated by a vocal minority of climbers, namely those who actually do the dirty work of bolting. Not knowing the proportion of climbers who bolt or even if this proportion has been measured, I would guess that bolters make up less than 5% of the climbing population. Yet it is they who will direct the development of our crags unless stopped by land managers and expressions of anger from other wilderness users. It’s true the Frenchification of American rock climbing is nearly complete. Bolt wars are almost always lost by the trad faction these days. The majority of American climbers don’t bolt but expect safe bolts for their clipping pleasure. This majority no doubt supports in a desultory way the views expressed in this forum and that’s why I support wilderness designation for Cochise.

Finally, do I expect to change anyone’s mind regarding these issues? Sooner convince the Taliban to live in peace and harmony with Christian Americans, or Arizonans to hand over their concealed-carry weapons. No, bolters have made up their minds and nothing will stand in their greedy way.