By vegastradguy
From Henderson, NV
Oct 7, 2008
| Larry DeAngelo wrote: Is it merely a question of adjusting the numbers? Would you be happy with 15 days, 2 weeks, 2 applications per person, and 10 per month? Is there any set of numbers that is acceptable? Earlier in the thread I said: This is the sort of thing they want to hear about. On the other hand, if you simply resent any BLM intrusion, they probably aren't going to have a whole lot of room to compromise.
I think that one of the main problems is that the BLM is trying to reinvent the wheel with this complicated plan of theirs. It's almost as if it never occurred to them to look around the country to see if there might be other climbing areas where this is a concern that a solution has been found for.
The flat reality is the current plan is so involved and restrictive that a large chunk of people are going to ignore it and bolt anyway- and no one is going to stop them. I saw 2 rangers in Red Rock on sunday- which would be the first time in 4 years that I have seen a ranger at all in the park, let alone two of them. (they were there for the 1/2 marathon that morning)So, given that experience- what's the likelihood of the rangers regulating the plan?
If the rangers cannot enforce the plan, then its up to the community to do so. Other major destinations have realized this and implemented working plans that the climbers largely regulate themselves. The BLM needs to talk with the NPS and other state agencies and think up a plan that will not only make sense, but that the community as a whole will enforce- including visitors to the area!
I continue to advocate the hand-drilling rule- it works in Yosemite, it is self-limiting (how many people are going to put up a 17 pitch sport route by hand?), and locals will enforce it. |  |
By Doug Hemken
From Madison, WI
Oct 7, 2008
| I hear lots of people say this (Lee's quote just happens to be handy):
Lee Jensen wrote: So if you want to put one single bolt at foot 99.... You had better not need a bolt when you are doing a FA with only "permit 1". This seems like it is only going to create very dangerous behavior.
In my experience, I usually can tell from HUNDREDS of feet below, where I am going to need/want a bolt. There is some uncertainty, but not as much as in flipping a coin.
I also have lots of experience getting in way over my head and backing off, sometimes from as high as 10-12 pitches up. That's part of what makes exploring new terrain interesting.
By the same token, I'm always surprised by the self-proclaimed clean trad purists who deride me climbing with a bolt kit because then "you can place a bolt wherever/whenever you want" and bolt my way out of any situation. Clearly these people have no experience using bolts in ground-up, on-sight, free climbing.
WRT safety: it is not now the government's responsibility to provide safe rock climbing venues, nor SHOULD it ever be. If you argue the government should take safety into consideration, you are undermining the future freedom of climbing.
If you understand what the BLM is trying to do with hunter's camps and geo-caches, then you'll understand what they are trying to do with managing bolts.
After putting up two new routes on Half Dome this year, both involving hand-drilled bolts, I have to tell you that one of the first questions most people ask me is "do you need a permit for that?" It doesn't matter whether they are climbers or not, MOST people ask me this. We even had a back-country ranger try to tell us that NO new routes were allowed on her beat. I think most people respond this way because it is a National Park, not because it is Designated Wilderness, but I'm pretty sure I can tell you where the future of bolting on protected Federal Land lies .... | |
By Andrew Carson
From Wilson, WY
Oct 7, 2008
| Right, the plan as it stands is way too complicated, unmanageable, and impractical, plus it does not solve problems, but creates them.
Having said that, it is a given that the BLM still must come up with a management plan for climbing within its Wilderness areas. So, climbers in turn have to work to make this plan a sensible one. Simplicity and a user-friendly system should be hallmarks of the final proposal, and in no way would such attributes detract from long-term preservation of Wilderness values. | |
By Doug Hemken
From Madison, WI
Oct 7, 2008
| vegastradguy wrote: I continue to advocate the hand-drilling rule- it works in Yosemite, it is self-limiting (how many people are going to put up a 17 pitch sport route by hand?), and locals will enforce it.
I think if you could convince the BLM that (1) the locals are willing to enforce some sort of rules, and (2) that those rules will really keep areas like "Sunny and Steep" from springing up all over the designated Wilderness, then the BLM would go for a less complicated scheme.
I personally like the "hand drills only" level of regulation, but in Red Rock you have (2) a long history of people putting up big routes with lots of bolts by hand, and (1) has anyone ever turned in someone to the BLM for using a power drill? I'm not sure there is a compelling body of evidence to suggest that a lighter regulatory approach would work in Red Rock. | |
By raygay
From Las Vegas, Nevada
Oct 7, 2008
| Thanks to Brian in SLC for providing (at the bottom of the first page of this thread) the link to the Access Fund's June 2007 comment letter on the BLM's proposed Wilderness Management Plan. The letter is long, but worth reading. It reinforces all of the same concerns I have about the plan and offers suggestions that resonate well with me.
This is a complicated issue with many different perspectives. These complications only reinforce the need for a simple plan that achieves priority primary objectives that everyone at least can understand, even if they may not agree 100%.
From the comments I've seen so far, there seems to be a strong sentiment among the climbers on this site that the proposed bolting rules are too strict, too complicated and will be too difficult for anyone, be they the BLM or the climbing community, to effectively enforce.
I hope the BLM is paying attention. | |
By Aaron S
From Vegas
Oct 8, 2008
| Brian in SLC wrote: Assume you meant "prohibiting power drills".
Yea, that was a typo, I meant 'power drills'. It sounds like pretty much everyone on here is in agreement. A complicated plan will simply be ignored, especially when a simple plan of "no power drills" has been very effective in other areas. | |
By vegastradguy
From Henderson, NV
Oct 8, 2008
| Doug Hemken wrote: I think if you could convince the BLM that (1) the locals are willing to enforce some sort of rules, and (2) that those rules will really keep areas like "Sunny and Steep" from springing up all over the designated Wilderness, then the BLM would go for a less complicated scheme. I personally like the "hand drills only" level of regulation, but in Red Rock you have (2) a long history of people putting up big routes with lots of bolts by hand, and (1) has anyone ever turned in someone to the BLM for using a power drill? I'm not sure there is a compelling body of evidence to suggest that a lighter regulatory approach would work in Red Rock.
well, i actually do think the locals will enforce some sort of rules-as long as they are involved in the construction and planning of said rules. I think a large part of the current problem is the fact that there is an outright ban and the locals aren't happy with it. as for Sunny and Steep- truthfully, i didnt know until 6 months ago that S&S was even in the wilderness boundaries- i doubt most folks do- most climbers that are even aware of the wilderness boundaries (not many, i suspect), assume that the canyons are wilderness, the hills are not.
while we do have a long history of people in RR putting in big routes by hand in RR- you have that elsewhere as well (yosemite, anyone?)- and those days are largely gone. Most folks these days are not willing to put in the time an effort to hand drill routes like PoD- in fact, i doubt many folks other than George have that kind of effort in them!
and while i do not know of any instance of a power-drill turn in, i wasn't really suggesting that locals would 'turn-in' someone for power-drilling. I was suggesting that locals would likely deal with the situation themselves rather than bringing in the BLM. regardless, it would still solve the problem. I can cite at least two examples where locals have gone out and dealt with illegally placed bolts in the wilderness recently- Atman and Cat in the Hat, neither of which involved the BLM until after the fact.
i also truly believe that, after talking with my friends here (many of which are involved in FAs), the current plan is simply unenforceable in any way shape or form, and people know it. so, rather than put in place a plan that folks know wont work, which will encourage illicit bolting, why not really sit down with the community (something the BLM has yet to do), and talk about the reality of the situation and figure out a real, working, enforceable plan for the area. while i think hand drilling is probably the best route, i would be a fool to think that my way is the only way.
climbers and land managers both want to see Red Rock stay beautiful and useable for future generations- i personally think that we all need to take a step back, sit down and have some honest conversations about it. | |
By Doug Hemken
From Madison, WI
Oct 8, 2008
| vegastradguy wrote: I can cite at least two examples where locals have gone out and dealt with illegally placed bolts in the wilderness recently- Atman and Cat in the Hat, neither of which involved the BLM until after the fact.
That's the kind of evidence you need to present to the BLM. I think this recent development is encouraging. If the locals can come together, decide on a reasonable standard, and show the BLM that they are policing it thoroughly, I think you can open up room for negotiation.
I think "Sunny & Steep" makes an interesting case study. I've been out there a few times. People appreciate it both for the climbing and for the location. Most people I've been with don't notice they've crossed into designated wilderness. It is clear evidence that a wilderness sport crag can become popular. It's great that so many people like it out there. It would be even better if they treated it as a special kind of sport crag.
I've heard that "Sunny & Steep" was bolted post wilderness designation. I think Handren's guide documents it as pre wilderness. I'm not sure it matters, really. It is so easy to drill in that sandstone (compared to Yosemite granite, say) that it wouldn't require much effort to establish another sport crag of similar size by hand. If you are going to allow climbers to establish concentrated use areas like this, you also need to allow hunters to establish permanent back-country camps, and allow geo-cachers to build permanent caches. It seems to me the BLM is opposed to all three.
So what bolting standards can you come up with that discourage concentrated use? Yosemite and Zion are not very relevant as examples here because the characteristics of the rock and the history are so different, maybe try thinking about Joshua Tree. That's closer to home, too. | |
By Doug Hemken
From Madison, WI
Oct 8, 2008
| How about guidelines like this:
Hand drills only.
Beyond the designated day-use wilderness (I forget the terminology for this), no more than 2 bolts in the first 100 feet.
Allows for some concentrated use, but discourages it in most of the wilderness that is not already heavily used anyway.
Just a thought. | |
By J. Thompson
From denver, co
Oct 8, 2008
| Doug Hemken wrote: How about guidelines like this: Hand drills only. Beyond the designated day-use wilderness (I forget the terminology for this), no more than 2 bolts in the first 100 feet. Allows for some concentrated use, but discourages it in most of the wilderness that is not already heavily used anyway. Just a thought.
I like that.
josh | |
By Coeus
Oct 8, 2008
| thanks josh and doug
sounds like we're all decided then.
go put it into action.
oh wait...there are no BLM people here
we're all just griping to each other
that works to fix bureaucratic red tape every time!
oh yeah and one of you is from wisconsin...that helps too. | |
By Brian in SLC
From Salt Lake City, UT
Oct 8, 2008
| Doug Hemken wrote: How about guidelines like this: Hand drills only. Beyond the designated day-use wilderness (I forget the terminology for this), no more than 2 bolts in the first 100 feet.
I don't think you can put an arbitrary vertical distance on bolt spacing. The rock and the person climbing it should determine that. I can't think of a climbing management plan anywhere that dictates such. Just doesn't make any sense to me at all. And, really, who's going to carry a tape measure? Vertical distance or rope distance? I can't imagine having to think about that requirement, much less having to enforce it. I can think of a bunch of routes that would be awful if there were two bolts in the first 15 feet, then 85 feet of run out to an anchor. Even if evenly spaced, you'd be looking at a ground fall getting to bolt #2, from a probable fatal distance.
I think if you limit the method of fixed protection to hand drilling only for bolts, you'll cover 99.999 percent of the folks out there with enough motivation to actually hand drill. Along with an agreed-to minimum bolt length and diameter, that enough would be enough restriction. Then let the FA party decide what is appropriate for them in an "unconfined" manner (to couch it in Wilderness speak).
Speaking of fixed pro, I don't know anyone who's successful at placing stainless Powerbolts in any rock, longer than the minimum available length of 2.25". The longer ones won't seat and end up being loose, spinners. Especially if hand drilled. The cones must be too soft. So, my vote would be to allow these bolts in the 2.25" length as in decent rock, that’s more than adequate.
Cheers. | |
By J. Thompson
From denver, co
Oct 8, 2008
| I don't think you can put an arbitrary vertical distance on bolt spacing.
I can't imagine having to think about that requirement, much less having to enforce it.
I agree with you Brian.
I view the "2 bolts in first hundred ft" more as a guideline then a hard and fast rule.
It's totally not enforceable. Of course NONE of the what the BLM is suggesting is!
In fact I'll say it...what the BLM is trying to do is Laughable.
Hell go look at the thread talking about raising fees....they have 54 employee's split between 2 different recreation areas!!
BLM if you want anything that is even remotely enforceable you need to listen to the climbers and other land managers.....hand drill only! | |
By Larry DeAngelo
Administrator
Oct 9, 2008
| Here is a question for those advocating a simple "hand-drill only" rule. Could you accept the maximum bolts per canyon numbers listed on page 20 of the proposed plan? (i.e. hand-drill only, but no more than the number of bolts specified in the Environmental Assessment) | |
By Doug Hemken
From Madison, WI
Oct 9, 2008
| Brian in SLC wrote: I don't think you can put an arbitrary vertical distance on bolt spacing. The rock and the person climbing it should determine that.... Then let the FA party decide what is appropriate for them in an "unconfined" manner....
What you require is that every bit of rock be equally open and available for a climber to consider putting up a route. As you rightly point out, that is the whole "unconfined" recreation idea in the the Wilderness Act. But we don't allow just any unconfined recreation on protected lands, we want that unconfined recreation to have minimal impact, minimal enough that the presence of people leaves little or no trace.
The BLM is driving toward managing for "dispersed" recreation. They can either close off more roads, or impose some rules. I think the Access Fund's strongest argument comes here, that the definition of acceptable dispersed recreation is not very well operationalized.
As Brian points out above, requiring hand drilling does little to discourage the development of concentrated climbing areas.
J. Thompson wrote: It's totally not enforceable. Of course NONE of the what the BLM is suggesting is!
Because climbers don't agree with the BLM's goals, and aren't willing to articulate their own goals and police themselves. No one has drawn the line anywhere and asked/forced other climbers to stick to it (with a couple of exceptions on existing routes, and that has yet to become consistent).
If the situation is that bleak, then the easiest thing for the BLM to do is leave climbing management rules the way they are. | |
By Andrew Carson
From Wilson, WY
Oct 9, 2008
| To Larry's question about accepting the maximum number of bolts/canyon limitation, I'd say no, I can't. The specific number is not really the point, but rather the level of detail that the plan presently asks for. # of bolts in Oak Creek Canyon? Let's get real. | |
By Doug Hemken
From Madison, WI
Oct 9, 2008
| You wouldn't *have* to specify a number of bolts to do an environmental impact statement (or whatever we call it these days). What you ultimately want to know to do an accurate assessment is how many new popular routes there will be, and how dispersed they will be. Someone want to take a crack at modeling that? | |
By Larry DeAngelo
Administrator
Oct 9, 2008
| Andrew Carson wrote: To Larry's question about accepting the maximum number of bolts/canyon limitation, I'd say no, I can't. The specific number is not really the point, but rather the level of detail that the plan presently asks for. # of bolts in Oak Creek Canyon? Let's get real.
The question I was trying to ask was, "Suppose all the detail is eliminated and the plan is reduced to two items: hand-drill, and max number per canyon. Is that simple enough? Acceptable?"
There is a reason that this is an important question. When the BLM implements a wilderness plan, it has to be subjected to an Environmental Assessment. The BLM has no choice on this matter-- this is federal law. So, if the BLM does an EA and concludes that in Oak Creek, the addition of 252 bolts will not seriously degrade the wilderness characteristics of the area, that becomes the allowable number in the plan. My own guess is that the limit is going to be pretty unavoidable, because it is tough to do an assessment of the impact of an unlimited number.
There is an additional point that climbers should take into account, especially because it is likely that the final plan will include some kind of limit. (And this is worth elaborating, because the proposed plan does not explain this well.) The planning horizon for the BLM document is 10 years (see page 2). That means that the limits they provide will not be re-evaluated for 10 years. This is something that climbers should be vocal about! In the CLC commentary, it is suggested to start much sooner than 10 years and to cycle through the canyons on an annual basis. This will allow the limit numbers to rise more rapidly if the impact truly not significant. | |
By Andrew Carson
From Wilson, WY
Oct 9, 2008
| It's hard to talk about one single feature of the plan, in this case a specific number of bolts/canyon, without getting sucked into considering everything else. It's all tied together like Ishmael tethered to the side of that white whale.
The BLM is busy issuing 'record of categorical exclusion' decisions to the need for EA's here in Wyoming, as the air in Sublette Co. competes for the worst west of the 100th meridian. There are many tools in their box, few in ours. The plan is hopelessly complex. I think they, and we, would be far better off if we started over, but that's not going to happen.
In June '07 the BLM asked for public comment on its proposed plan. Many of us submitted lengthy comments, including the Access Fund, which, for lack of competition if nothing else, presents a responsible position for many climbers. When will the BLM be ready to lay out its revised ideas, having taken in the comments and responses it'd received? Much of this thread was part of the public's response in '07. | |
By Larry DeAngelo
Administrator
Oct 9, 2008
| Andrew Carson wrote: It's hard to talk about one single feature of the plan, in this case a specific number of bolts/canyon, without getting sucked into considering everything else....
That's why I suggest looking at that very simplified version.
Andrew Carson wrote: The BLM is busy issuing 'record of categorical exclusion' decisions to the need for EA's here in Wyoming,
We tried to go down that road in 2005 and 2006. It didn't work.
Andrew Carson wrote: I think they, and we, would be far better off if we started over, but that's not going to happen. In June '07 the BLM asked for public comment on its proposed plan. Many of us submitted lengthy comments, including the Access Fund, which, for lack of competition if nothing else, presents a responsible position for many climbers. When will the BLM be ready to lay out its revised ideas, having taken in the comments and responses it'd received? Much of this thread was part of the public's response in '07.
The plan ground to a halt when the BLM lost the key guy working on it. But there is a good side to that-- nothing is cast in concrete yet. So there is still a chance to influence the direction that is taken. If a hundred climbers all said hand-drill with canyon limits sounded like an OK compromise, then you have something to talk about. If nobody says anything other than the plan sucks, I doubt that it will have a positive effect. | |
By raygay
From Las Vegas, Nevada
Oct 9, 2008
| Larry's suggestion of a simple statement limiting the number of new bolts in each canyon and allowing drilling only by hand may not be perfect, but I see it as a much better solution than the current proposal. This is the kind of compromise thinking I was hoping might come forward.
Could this be the right time for a group like the LVCLC to take the input collected from this web site, their survey, and their regular monthly meetings, together with the Access Fund comment letter, to schedule a meeting with the right people at BLM to discuss a compromise solution? | |
By J. Thompson
From denver, co
Oct 9, 2008
| raygay wrote: Larry's suggestion of a simple statement limiting the number of new bolts in each canyon and allowing drilling only by hand may not be perfect, but I see it as a much better solution than the current proposal. This is the kind of compromise thinking I was hoping might come forward.
I would back Larry's idea as well....with 1 addition.....which I think Larry already hinted at.
Those limit's should not be set in stone...either another evaluation should be done OR there should be an addition like...252 bolts in oak creek over the next 5 years.
josh | |
By Andrew Gomoll
From Henderson, NV
Oct 10, 2008
| yes, flexibility in the program is key. as already stated, the plan limits FA freedom and promotes extesnsive application for permits, planning, bureaucracy, etc. i like the hand drill ethic and a flexible plan that can be changed. i think the # of bolts is just the governments way of establishing some quantifiable data. if that factor can be flexible it would be exceptable. | |
By Coeus
Oct 10, 2008
| After receiving two PM's I stand corrected. I was not aware that there was any BLM interest in this little ole website.
With that being said, I would agree that there should be hand drills only. I know that some argue that many routes with many bolts went in with hand drills, but that was in the 1/4 inch era. These days I think trying to put in 3/8 with a hand drill would slow down "sport crag" style development.
I would agree that bolt quotas are probably the BLM's way to come up with a quantifiable way to monitor the canyons, however, Larry's suggestion to rotate which canyons are inventoried would be a great idea.
To recap:
hand drills would be good
rotating bolt counts would be good too. | |
By John Hegyes
From Las Vegas, NV
Oct 10, 2008
| Putting up long trad lines involves a sense of exploration and adventure. These rules tend to destroy all of that. Instead of pushing forward up the wall, seeing where the new route ends up, I suppose this permitting process would have you scoping the line from the ground and guessing where the bolts might be necessary followed by endless hours of bureaucratic wrangling before the adventure can even begin. Honestly, how can a permit application be filled out before a route is climbed? I don't see the feasibility in proposing a line a describing anchor locations when you haven't even left the ground. The whole thing strikes me as unsafe and unrealistic. | |
|
[ Forums > Nevada ]
RSS Feed
