Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Public comment on wilderness area fixed hardware
|
Conservation groups are opposing the Protect America’s Rock Climbing Act saying it is in opposition to the Wilderness Act. Interpretation is that no fixed hardware is legal in wilderness areas. Currently fixed hardware is being classified as an ‘installation’ which means any bolts, anchors are illegal and there are proposed plans to conduct an inventory of all existing hardware (!!) and ban new hardware in these areas. Public comment is open through Jan 16. See article for more comprehensive info and link to public comment. http://coloradosun.com/2023/11/17/forest-service-rock-climbing-wilderness-bolts/ |
|
I'm not opposed to a review/permit process. I do not think an "anything goes" approach is going to be workable anymore. There are too many so-called "developers" with power tools out there. The wilderness areas need protection. |
|
Agree, CN. Wish there was a way to channel the desire for wilderness route development into something else constructive but still fulfilling. Route setting in a gym just doesn’t measure up. |
Cherokee Nunes wrote: I understand the attractiveness of acting the old curmudgeon, I play that game also at times. However, the trope that there is rampant power drilling in the Wilderness is just that, s trope. Power tools are already illegal in the Wilderness. Let me ask you this. Are you okay with erasing most if not all El Cap routes? There is a lot of fixed hardware on those. And, Bill. You climb in the Sandias. Are you okay with removing the fixed hardware on those Sandia routes that depend on it? It is all Wilderness up there, after all. Be careful what you wish for. |
So is it a trope, or not? I can think of 3 power bolted sport climbing areas inside wilderness boundaries, in my local areas. And that's off the top of my head. Am I ok with erasing El Cap routes. Not specifically, no. But it won't be the end of the world, if they are. But I think those fears are a trope, no such El Cap routes have been erased. |
 I would like to see the basis for the estimate of 90% of all routes in designated wilderness using fixed bolts and anchors. If that is the case then it really does not help the bill. |
|
Just enforce rules about power tools in wilderness areas. Hand drilling should continue to be allowed. |
|
Just another reason to keep secrets. Hunting and horse are ok in wilderness areas but not bolts? How long until we have to pay rec.gov to climb? |
Cherokee Nunes wrote: As Frank and C G mentioned, the power tools are already banned in Wilderness. If there are routes bolted with a motorized drill, that is a violation of existing policy. Power-drilled bolts should be removed and those who used power drills should be fined/banned/ridiculed/etc. No new policy is required to do this, just the enforcement of existing policies. I always thought that allowing bolts but banning power drills was a perfect solution. Hand drilling is a ton of work, and this naturally limits excess bolting. You can still get a bolt in when it is needed, but you have to really want it and the sheer effort will discourage superfluous bolting. There are exceptions of course - highly sensitive areas where stricter regulation is appropriate. Whether that's a permit process or an outright ban. But a heavy blanket restriction on bolting across all Wilderness areas would be excessive and would limit new-routing options in remote places like the Wind River range. By the nature of that style of climbing, it's just not practical to get a permit for every hole drilled on an exploratory new route in a remote place. |
|
As much as it pains me to agree with Nunes, I consider Designated Wilderness special and worthy of special consideration rising above my personal wants. I think it’s worth reconsidering if some Yosemite walls deserve Designated Wilderness status As cool as it is, permadraws shouldn’t exist here And shit like this, easily visible to all who happened to be here then, is a travesty that takes a dump on the natural beauty of this place |
Brie Abram wrote: Is this designated Wilderness? I clicked the link in the area description, and it looks like Underworld is just Forest Service land. However, there is much climbing in designated Wilderness, much of it historical, that relies on fixed hardware. I just don’t understand how the occasional hand-drilled bolt hurts the “wilderness experience” or the Wilderness itself, especially when things like horse corrals and horses are a-okay. On a final note, equating crags on Forest Service land with Wilderness crags is not helpful, and gives misleading ideas to those who don’t understand or refuse to understand the distinction. |
Brie Abram wrote: Controversial alternate take: I disagree with the concept of Wilderness altogether. The Wilderness concept is an ahistorical fabrication left over from some really racist Victorians. The Wilderness concept also creates a bizarre binary between the land of capitalism where the land is logged and mined and grazed and otherwise pillaged with abandon, and some special magical "untouched" "natural" place (a fiction, as noted above) where any human influence is unwelcome. This leaves out the middle ground, of well managed land where human influence and non-human ecology can interact in a healthy way. Where regular people can just go an interact with the landscape within some reasonable guidelines. This middle ground is an important area, and encompasses a wide gradient of level of human influence. I think that recreational infrastructure like trails and bolts fit well into this middle ground. We need more places where you aren't allowed to build a factory or shopping mall or strip mine, but you are allowed to put in a sport climb or bike trail. But we seem to go in the opposite direction. As more areas are taken over by development, the response is to lock down harder on the designated "Wilderness", thus squeezing out the middle areas. |
Frank Stein wrote: Yes, it is wilderness. Here is a more accurate map with the bullseye over the climbing area. The pale yellow area is wilderness. The light green area west along Old 105 and east above the rim of NC Wall is Forest Service land  |
Brie Abram wrote: Well, if that’s the case, then this would be an illegal crag…unless someone did a whole lot of hand-drilling. It would probably be a good thing to remove the crag from MP, and perhaps even pull the bolts. |
|
Is the concept of an installation well defined in the wilderness act? I've seen plenty of trail infrastructure that sure strikes me as an installation. I'm not really sure how something like hand drilled rappel bolts are characteristically different than a trail culvert or bridge. |
|
If bolts are an "installation" in wilderness, then so are trails, trail signs, bathrooms, and established campsites. Let's remove all those first, and then we can get around to removing all the bolts after that. It's clear that "installation" in the wilderness act was meant to refer to larger structures like buildings. |
Israel R wrote: It's about control. The agencies are OK with anything they put in (work by their trail crews), but are agahst at the public going and putting in anything outside their agrncy control. |
Alex Fischer wrote: My understanding is that fixed hardware has recently been classified as ‘permanent installation’ which then makes it illegal. Anyway, hope people can take a few minutes to participate in the public comment period. Access Fund is also working on this. |
Alex Fischer wrote: those items are considered "installations" and the agency in charge has to do a minimum requirements analysis before developing them. |
|
The wilderness act was never meant to prohibit mountain bikes, hand placed bolts or to make it possible for a private business to charge admission to the wilderness. |
ErikaNW wrote: Do you happen to have a link to where to make a comment? |
