Proposed policy for fixed anchors in wilderness areas in National Parks

Hi All,

A new proposed policy on fixed anchors in wilderness areas in National Parks is pending.

The Access Fund talks about it here:
accessfund.org/site/apps/nl…

The actual policy is here:

parkplanning.nps.gov/docume…

I would guess if this goes into effect, then the other federal land management agencies will adopt it as well.

SOME HIGHLIGHTS ARE HERE:

This is bad legislation.
Where is the NPS's proof that there are/have been violations of its existing wilderness act?
The only high profile case I can think of was the Muir Wall incident.
They are creating laws and rules to create work for themselves to justify their budget.
Power Drills are already illegal in wilderness, as per the wilderness act. In my opinion it also addresses bolts. They are temporary man made structures are they not. Most are removable and leave minimal permanent impact. Most can't even be seen from 30' by trained eyes.
If this sets precedence I'll probably teach my daughter to knit instead of climb. At least that way, the past time I pass on to her isn't going to be regulated away from her.

I wrote on the Access site "As somebody who does a lot of FAs and has placed quite a few bolts, including at Rumney and other New England areas, these rules sound pretty fair to me, as long as they are applied to only Wilderness Areas. They are allowing some fixed gear, but trying to keep it to a minimum. I am all for keeping some areas less touched by man, even if it means that I can't climb on every potential good route. I just wish these areas could be real wilderness, and not touched by fees or feeling like you have a ranger breathing down your neck at every turn. People need to be able to escape from the ever present commercialization, where you can't even take a walk or sit under a tree without having to pay something."

I think the question comes in how the permitting is allowed. Some places, like Yosemite, where there is a very strong climbing history, should have more lenient permitting IMO. I do think bolts are better put in with a power drill than hand drilling, so it seems slightly absurd to insist on that, especially when doing replacements, but that is the price to pay. Hand drilling does keep the numbers down.

Maybe you should only be allowed in Wilderness Areas naked or wearing furs, rangers included. And they can only use spears for weapons.

Scott,
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I appreciate your dedication to access and education. I believe we as a user group need to be aware of the many issues which threaten the very future of climbing as we have known it. Regulations such as this used to anger me, though more recently it seems a blessing in disguise given the amount of irresponsible bolting going on everywhere. I wonder what part I have played in this problem.

Although it might be hard to prosecute, a well educated ranger (of which there are many) could provide good argument that power drills have indeed been used in Wilderness Areas. See recent Rock and Ice article glorifying (alleged) illegal bolting. Check any number of areas posted here on MP which have tiny cliffs with hundreds of bolts. In our own vain pursuit for individual glory we are forcing the government to regulate our behavior. To make a name for ourselves we seem to be in some ways destroying that which we treasure.

There are many Wilderness Areas in the Western US where it is hard to find a ranger or a fee, where one can escape the ever present commercialization. The more we post about them, post pictures on our blogs, write stories for the mags, the less wild these places become in some ways. It is those areas I most dream to preserve so that future climbers might get half the chance to explore that we have enjoyed.

It seems if the NPS adopts this policy then the Forest Service and BLM would not be far behind. An off-hand guess would presume this to cover at least 1/2 the major climbing areas in the country.

If this policy extended to the National Forest and BLM in general, especially while all the other uses like mining, grazing, logging, hunting, tour bussing etc were allowed, we should be up in arms.

Designated Wilderness areas are a differant thing, and should get special protection IMO.

In legislation probably never seen before in human history, in 1964 the United States Congress passed the Wilderness Act, dedicating certain Federal lands for special protection. In terms of this discussion, this includes such historic climbing areas as El Capitan, the Black Canyon and extensive parts of Rocky Mountain National Park, Canyonlands, Zion, North Cascades and most all of the Grand Canyon.
While perhaps a fraction of the public land systems managed by the NPS, BLM, and USFS, these "Wilderness Areas" tend to favor those of us with an itch for the vertical world.
We should be concerned about this legislation.

(a portion of) The Wilderness Act:
“In order to assure that an increasing population, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and modify all areas within the United States and its possessions, leaving no lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.”

“A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

“…there shall be no commercial enterprise and no permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this Act and, 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.”

(Edit to add emphasis to key phrases).

I don't post often, but something of this nature warrants attention from everyone who can consider themselves part of our "user group". Thus, I'll kick in my 2 cents.

First of all, I'll be completely honest... I just got home from a long day at work and can't commit the time, right now, to do the necessary refreshing research. With that said, I spent my time in graduate school studying climbing and its "constraints to continued participation". I certainly don't intend to imply that I'm aware of all aspects of the situation. I'm pleasantly aware of the fact that many of you, who are a vital part of our community, are well versed in the legislation. However, I'll toss in a few quick thoughts..Please contribute.

A few things to consider from the Wilderness Act of '64

-activities that were considered to be "established" prior to the Wilderness Act have some leeway. For instance...air travel

-there are certain areas where "climbing" was taking place prior to
the Wilderness Act. This gives us some backing. It may not be
much, but certainly is one more tool within our "tool box"

-There are certain "safety" considerations that merit extra thought
from our federal agencies. The Wilderness Act implicitly states
that there may be exceptions due to the safety of Wilderness
users. (This is not verbatim). It's in there somewhere...

-if I remember correctly (I may not) things like bridges are
considered reasonable. In certain situations...

-Are fixed anchors something that we can reasonably justify as a
measure of safety? Maybe...

-We also have to consider that the W.A. (Wilderness Act) states that
mechanical devices are not allowed.
-Cell phones?
-GPS?
-Bolts, whether placed by power drill or hand, are certainly
mechanical.
-mechanical implies moving parts
-Cams move! Right?
With that said, wheelbarrows are also mechanical. The viable use of items of this nature are determined by the district ranger (When the United State Forest Service is concerned)...........

This is serious folks!

I absolutely guarantee that this legislation will be precedent setting!!!! Look into it. Where do you climb??? BLM, USFS, NPS, State Land, Private, etc....?????????

I like most all of what this proposal states about LNT, be responsible stewards, etc. It is the part about fixed anchors in which we might be concerned. This proposal will seriously hinder any person who enjoys establishing (or repeating) new routes in Wilderness Areas (sport and trad climbers alike) and could effect people climbing obscure routes with older hardware.
Federal Wilderness Areas surely could contain half of all potential new routes in this country.

"Authorization will be required for the placement of new fixed anchors of fixed equipment."

Access Fund Wants Your Input on NPS Fixed Anchor Proposal

The Access Fund is soliciting the input of the climbing community to inform our policy position on this critically important issue.

Please visit the Access Fund website and take a moment to read our summary of the major take-aways of the proposed policy, the history of the fixed anchor debate, and the Access Fund's advocacy strategy -- then take the survey.

Thank you!

Bump for a crucial issue.

Take the AF survey.
I found it thought provoking.
There are no real good solutions in my mind to this issue.
With the exception of reducing the insane population growth the world is undergoing.

I encourage everyone to spend a few minutes taking the Access Fund survey and to share their thoughts with the National Park Service on this issue.

"The establishment of bolt-intensive face climbs, such as “sport climbs,” is considered incompatible with wilderness preservation and management due to the concentration of human activity which they support, and the types and level of impacts associated with the development of such routes."

I love it.

Seriously, sounds good to me. I don't see the big issue here. Let's all remember that this applies ONLY to wilderness areas on NP lands (not [most of] zion, not [most of] yosemite, not most of the places people climb, not wilderness areas on FS or BLM land). And it's not a ban on bolt anchors either.

Look to the Gunks, for they are rad.

This proposal by the National Park Service should be of concern for any person who climbs in Yosemite, Zion or the Black Canyon - all areas with extensive amounts of rockclimbing in Federal Wilderness Areas. [Think El Capitan in Yosemite - a designated Wilderness Area].

This proposal would have serious implications for any person wishing to (re)place a bolt or any sort of fixed anchor (sling around a horn). In some places it could lead to an outright ban on climbing until the land managers can come up with a plan for their area - which would likely take years to produce.

I believe history would suggest that if the NPS passes this, it won't be long before the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management pass similar prohibitions.

I encourage everyone to check out the above link to the Access Fund website to learn more about this proposal. It may be the most draconian measure we have faced as a community.

Scott-

Thanks for posting this, it's definitely something that we all need to be aware of.

The NPS link seems to be dead, do you know if they are (still) accepting public comment on this issue?

Thanks,

Andy Bennett
Tucson, AZ

Hi Andy,

Link appears active today---Tuesday, February 22, 2011.

Thanks for alerting me.

Scott Mc

Scott,

Thanks for alerting the community to this. I commend you on your continued pro-activeness on this and other matters; lesser humans would have slunk away in resignation long ago ;)

Regarding the matter at hand: Whatever comes, we have brought on ourselves. Let the chips fall, I say. It seems obvious to me that we cannot successfully self-regulate. Recent events in Southern Arizona are proof.

Hi All,

The time for comment on this NPS proposal (on fixed anchors in wilderness) ends on March 10, 2011.

In my view, it is important that NPS hear your voice---so that they know climbers views must be taken into consideration.

I think that the NPS's decision on fixed anchors may have an effect on your climbing for the rest of your life.

The Access Fund has created an easy way to comment. It is here:

accessfund.org/site/apps/nl…

Please take a look at the Access Fund's position statement before commenting.

Thanks!

Scott Mc

anyone know how this will be enforced?

who defines what is an "occasional" or "rare" fixed anchor placement?

To be honest, this legislation will probably result in more covert bolting, not less, and that is unfortunate. It's really sad to see not just the direction climbing is heading, but our government as well. Fear not, we will soon be too poor to enforce these types of regulation and then who ever can afford bolts will be able to do so. For those in the know, what can we do to address this pending legislation??

josh holmes wrote:If this sets precedence I'll probably teach my daughter to knit instead of climb. At least that way, the past time I pass on to her isn't going to be regulated away from her.