Skip to content

Why should climbers be exempt from the bolting ban?

General Climbing
  • @louis no problem.

    I find this issue puzzling. (I'm also surprised when our senator is making the same arguments as Joe Manchin.)

    Trail maintenance is certainly an issue. And it seems like allowing more fixed anchors would only make the maintenance issue worse.

    When I've asked my climbing friends about this, they've basically said they like climbing and the fixed anchors make that better and safer. And after all, they're doing less damage than those other people. Which I find unconvincing ...

    @colo_lee I think it's a tough situation, and like anything, there is a happy medium.

    By encouraging climbing, safety, etc. you can both bring tourism to parks and forests.

    But by bringing too much traffic, you can of course create pollution, etc.

    And just who is qualified to put in permanent anchors is a good question. Cleaning routes of loose rocks is important, but how do you ensure people aren't intentionally chipping new holds?

    Nuanced questions with next-to-no funding.

  • @colo_lee I think it's a tough situation, and like anything, there is a happy medium.

    By encouraging climbing, safety, etc. you can both bring tourism to parks and forests.

    But by bringing too much traffic, you can of course create pollution, etc.

    And just who is qualified to put in permanent anchors is a good question. Cleaning routes of loose rocks is important, but how do you ensure people aren't intentionally chipping new holds?

    Nuanced questions with next-to-no funding.

    @louis thanks -- that gives some useful addl insight.

    I can see why the simplest answer from the wilderness admin perspective is "climbing anchors are clearly permanent installations. Thus banned".

    If that's not what we the people want, then Congress needs to update the law. This seems to be what Hick et. al. are trying to do. Funding must be included.

    I'm still unconvinced that we should modify the definition of wilderness to say "some permanent installations are ok". How wild is wild?

  • @louis thanks -- that gives some useful addl insight.

    I can see why the simplest answer from the wilderness admin perspective is "climbing anchors are clearly permanent installations. Thus banned".

    If that's not what we the people want, then Congress needs to update the law. This seems to be what Hick et. al. are trying to do. Funding must be included.

    I'm still unconvinced that we should modify the definition of wilderness to say "some permanent installations are ok". How wild is wild?

    @colo_lee Great questions all around. To which I have no answers.

    Ideally there would be some sort of a governing body deciding anchors on this area are acceptable this other area, they are not.

    Or limit the number of anchors in a sepecific location, etc.

    But, to your point, funding is necessary for that. And the climbing community isn't exactly the most potent economic force out there.

    Parks and forests always lack the attention they deserve, since they don't generate revenue.

  • @colo_lee Great questions all around. To which I have no answers.

    Ideally there would be some sort of a governing body deciding anchors on this area are acceptable this other area, they are not.

    Or limit the number of anchors in a sepecific location, etc.

    But, to your point, funding is necessary for that. And the climbing community isn't exactly the most potent economic force out there.

    Parks and forests always lack the attention they deserve, since they don't generate revenue.

    @louis thanks -- this has been useful for me trying to think about this issue. Appreciate the conversation!

  • D devnull moved this topic from Uncategorized on 23 Sept 2024, 22:00
  • I know a lot of climbers and Hick is certainly representing that group of people.

    But, it sure seems like fixed climbing anchors are a perfect example of "permanent installations,” exactly what's banned in wilderness.

    Why should climbers be exempt? Because they're my friends and have fun climbing?

    Explain to me why it's wrong to ban permanent installations in wilderness or why climbing is special.

    https://coloradosun.com/2024/09/23/senators-hickenlooper-climbing-anchors-wilderness/

    #Colorado #wilderness #climbing

    @colo_lee@mstdn.social @louis@indieweb.social your question is a good one, and is one that has many facets that allow for seemingly endless discussion. I won't pretend to know it all, but I will try to explain some of those facets.

    One part is that the updates to the Wilderness Act make it next to impossible to install bolts for climber protection, as it requires the registration and manual approval before bolts can be added. My understanding is that for an already resource-starved agency, this would essentially cause the legitimate process to be so consumed by red tape that bolting would cease to exist.

    Another part is that rock climbing is and has long been considered a legitimate use of recreating on public land. The addition of bolts is fairly minimal and leaves next to no trace on the wall itself. On any given climbing route you'd be hard pressed to locate the bolts unless you knew what you were looking for.

    Allowing bolting to continue won't cause parks and wilderness to overflow with climbers blasting their punk rock and trashing the place, if that were the case it would've happened already.

    Yet another facet argues that the trace left behind by bolts pales in comparison to many other forms of recreation. Equestrian trails leaving mounds of horse poop to rot (definitely not "leave no trace"!), mountain bikers wearing away trails, semi-permanent huts for cross-country skiiers, etc.

    Yet a couple 1"x1" pieces of metal are going to destroy the mountain...?

  • @colo_lee@mstdn.social @louis@indieweb.social your question is a good one, and is one that has many facets that allow for seemingly endless discussion. I won't pretend to know it all, but I will try to explain some of those facets.

    One part is that the updates to the Wilderness Act make it next to impossible to install bolts for climber protection, as it requires the registration and manual approval before bolts can be added. My understanding is that for an already resource-starved agency, this would essentially cause the legitimate process to be so consumed by red tape that bolting would cease to exist.

    Another part is that rock climbing is and has long been considered a legitimate use of recreating on public land. The addition of bolts is fairly minimal and leaves next to no trace on the wall itself. On any given climbing route you'd be hard pressed to locate the bolts unless you knew what you were looking for.

    Allowing bolting to continue won't cause parks and wilderness to overflow with climbers blasting their punk rock and trashing the place, if that were the case it would've happened already.

    Yet another facet argues that the trace left behind by bolts pales in comparison to many other forms of recreation. Equestrian trails leaving mounds of horse poop to rot (definitely not "leave no trace"!), mountain bikers wearing away trails, semi-permanent huts for cross-country skiiers, etc.

    Yet a couple 1"x1" pieces of metal are going to destroy the mountain...?

    @devnull @colo_lee Great points! I tend to agree.

    I’ve only been outdoor climbing once (well, a trip, with a guide).

    I would only go where there are bolts. Trad is not for me.

    So no more bolts would indeed mean no more outdoor climbing for me.

  • @colo_lee@mstdn.social @louis@indieweb.social your question is a good one, and is one that has many facets that allow for seemingly endless discussion. I won't pretend to know it all, but I will try to explain some of those facets.

    One part is that the updates to the Wilderness Act make it next to impossible to install bolts for climber protection, as it requires the registration and manual approval before bolts can be added. My understanding is that for an already resource-starved agency, this would essentially cause the legitimate process to be so consumed by red tape that bolting would cease to exist.

    Another part is that rock climbing is and has long been considered a legitimate use of recreating on public land. The addition of bolts is fairly minimal and leaves next to no trace on the wall itself. On any given climbing route you'd be hard pressed to locate the bolts unless you knew what you were looking for.

    Allowing bolting to continue won't cause parks and wilderness to overflow with climbers blasting their punk rock and trashing the place, if that were the case it would've happened already.

    Yet another facet argues that the trace left behind by bolts pales in comparison to many other forms of recreation. Equestrian trails leaving mounds of horse poop to rot (definitely not "leave no trace"!), mountain bikers wearing away trails, semi-permanent huts for cross-country skiiers, etc.

    Yet a couple 1"x1" pieces of metal are going to destroy the mountain...?

    @devnull @louis Great -- this is the kind of info I was looking for.

    The update Hick & others are proposing would be the one that requires reg & approval of new bolts? So, your worry is that it effectively regulates away climbing bolts because of resource limits?

    That's very different positioning than what I've seen. Namely that this update is supposed to save the ability to place bolts. Would be ironic for it to effectively end it.

    1/2

  • @devnull @louis Great -- this is the kind of info I was looking for.

    The update Hick & others are proposing would be the one that requires reg & approval of new bolts? So, your worry is that it effectively regulates away climbing bolts because of resource limits?

    That's very different positioning than what I've seen. Namely that this update is supposed to save the ability to place bolts. Would be ironic for it to effectively end it.

    1/2

    @devnull @louis Does the proposed update apply just to wilderness areas or more broadly to public lands? My thinking is that those are very different uses: I'm all for climbing, biking, camping, horse infrastructure on FS and NPS land, it's specifically wilderness where I'm questioning "permanent installations".

    And yeah, horses on trail suck. I'm glad no bikes in wilderness. I'd like it if there were also no horses. Poop, trail destruction, a disaster in the rain and mud.

    2/2

  • @devnull @louis Does the proposed update apply just to wilderness areas or more broadly to public lands? My thinking is that those are very different uses: I'm all for climbing, biking, camping, horse infrastructure on FS and NPS land, it's specifically wilderness where I'm questioning "permanent installations".

    And yeah, horses on trail suck. I'm glad no bikes in wilderness. I'd like it if there were also no horses. Poop, trail destruction, a disaster in the rain and mud.

    2/2

    @colo_lee@mstdn.social no, not quite.

    Hickenlooper, et al. are writing a bill to request additional guidance and to protect the ability to bolt in the wilderness, among other things. It's a response to the original issue from the NPS and US Forest service.

    A good summary of the original issue and potential access threat is summarized by the Access Fund here

  • @colo_lee@mstdn.social no, not quite.

    Hickenlooper, et al. are writing a bill to request additional guidance and to protect the ability to bolt in the wilderness, among other things. It's a response to the original issue from the NPS and US Forest service.

    A good summary of the original issue and potential access threat is summarized by the Access Fund here

    @devnull Thanks.

    Reading that article, the analogy that occurred to me is trails. I don't object at all to trails in wilderness areas. And it's ok for the trails to be "permanent installations": with drainage, bolted down steps, etc.

    The climbing infrastructure seems very similar, thinking of bolts as trails.

    And like trails, we should control where they are. Social trails should be discouraged and blocked when found.

    (Again, I'm just talking about wilderness areas, not all public lands.)

15/15

24 Sept 2024, 17:14

Suggested topics


  • 1 Votes
    1 Posts
    33 Views
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj5OfEfxuXY
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    43 Views
    Originally published in Guidebook XIII I. Zach Clanton was the photographer, so he was the last one to drop into the couloir. Sitting on the cornice as he strapped his board on, his camera tucked away now, his partners far below him and safe out of the avalanche track, he took a moment and looked at the skyline. He soaked in the jagged peaks, the snow and rock, the blue of the sky. And he said hello to his dead friends. In the thin mountain air, as he was about to revel in the breathlessness of fast turns and the thrill of skating on a knife’s edge of danger, they were close by—the ones he’d lost to avalanches. Dave and Alecs. Liz and Brook. The people he had turned to for girlfriend advice, for sharing climbing and splitboarding joy. The people who had witnessed his successes and failures. Too many to name. Lost to the great allure, yet ever-present danger, of the big mountains. Zach had always been the more conservative one in his friend group and among his big mountain splitboard partners. Still, year after year, he played the tricky game of pushing his snowboarding to epic places. Zach is part of a disappearing breed of true dirtbags. Since 2012, he has lived inside for a total of ten months, otherwise based out of his Honda Element and later a truck camper, migrating from Alaska to Mexico as the seasons dictated. When he turned 30, something snapped. Maybe he lost his patience with the weather-waiting in Alaska. Maybe he just got burnt out on snowboarding after spending his entire life dedicated to the craft. Maybe he was fried from the danger of navigating avalanche terrain so often. Regardless, he decided to take a step back from splitboarding and fully dedicate his time to climbing, something that felt more controllable, less volatile. With rock climbing, he believed he would be able to get overhead snow and ice hazards out of his life. He was done playing that game. Even as Zach disentangled his life and career from risky descents, avalanches still haunted him. Things hit a boiling point in 2021, when Zach lost four friends in one season, two of whom were like brothers. As can be the case with severe trauma, the stress of his grief showed up in his body—manifesting as alopecia barbae. He knew grief counseling could help, but it all felt too removed from his life. Who would understand his dirtbag lifestyle? Who would understand how he was compelled to live out of his car, and disappear into the wilderness whenever possible? He grappled with his grief for years, unsure how to move forward. When, by chance, he listened to the Enormocast episode featuring Lincoln Stoller, a grief therapist who’s part of the AAC’s Climbing Grief Fund network and an adventurer in his own right—someone who had climbed with Fred Beckey and Galen Rowell, some of Zach’s climbing idols—a door seemed to crack open, a door leading toward resiliency, and letting go. He applied to the Climbing Grief Grant, and in 2024 he was able to start seeing Lincoln for grief counseling. He would start to see all of his close calls, memories, and losses in a new light. II. With his big mountain snowboarding days behind him, Zach turned to developing new routes for creativity and the indescribable pleasure of moving across rock that no one had climbed before. With a blank canvas, he felt like he was significantly mitigating and controlling any danger. There was limited objective hazard on the 1,500-foot limestone wall of La Gloria, a gorgeous pillar west of El Salto, Mexico, where he had created a multi-pitch classic called Rezando with his friend Dave in early 2020. Dave and Zach had become brothers in the process of creating Rezando, having both been snowboarders who were taking the winter off to rock climb. On La Gloria, it felt like the biggest trouble you could get into was fighting off the coatimundi, the dexterous ringtail racoon-like creatures that would steal their gear and snacks. After free climbing all but two pitches of Rezando in February of 2020, when high winds and frigid temperatures drove them off the mountain, Zach was obsessed with the idea of going back and doing the first free ascent. He had more to give, and he wasn’t going to loosen his vise grip on that mountain. Besides, there was much more potential for future lines. But Dave decided to stay in Whistler that next winter, and died in an ... https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2025/2/10/guidebook-xiiicgf-spotlight
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    39 Views
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkbVkRE0HYE
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    39 Views
    Find out why, plus see 6 words we’re retiring in 2025 https://www.climbing.com/community/and-the-climbing-word-of-the-year-is-float/
  • 1 Votes
    1 Posts
    50 Views
    Shauna Coxsey has been the figurehead of UK Climbing for over a decade, winning multiple IFSC World Cup titles and representing Team GB at the Tokyo Olympics. Now transitioning from the high-intensity world of competition climbing to the raw, unpredictable realm of outdoor rock, Shauna takes us through a season of transformation. With... https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=776927
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    51 Views
    38-year-old American climber Austin Geiman has made a rare repeat of one of the United State's coolest blocs The post A Send of Defying Gravity V15 After 11 Years and 100+ Sessions appeared first on Gripped Magazine. https://gripped.com/news/a-send-of-defying-gravity-v15-after-11-years-and-100-sessions/
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    72 Views
    https://blog.weighmyrack.com/what-type-of-belay-device-do-i-use/
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    67 Views
    https://www.ontarioallianceofclimbers.ca/2023/06/12/our-letter-campaign-is-live/