Are National Parks REMOVING ALL CLIMBING BOLTS?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 янв 2024
- Is climbing threatened? Are “they” removing bolts? What’s the whole “STOP THE BOLTING PROHIBITION” all about? Please do NOT email me unless you have seen the entire video. Thanks!!!
The Wilderness Act of 1964 wilderness.net/learn-about-wi...
Ctrl F “no structure or installation” for the words the new policy is going to define
ASCA: safeclimbing.org/fixed-anchor...
ACCESS FUND: www.accessfund.org/latest-new...
AMERICAN ALPINE CLUB: americanalpineclub.org/news/2...
FOREST SERVICE POLICY: usfs-public.app.box.com/s/3q0...
FOREST SERVICE FEEDBACK FORM: cara.fs2c.usda.gov/Public/Com...
NPS POLICY: parkplanning.nps.gov/document...
NPS FEEDBACK FORM: parkplanning.nps.gov/commentF...
The true source of all knowledge (pages 25 & 26): www.mountainproject.com/forum...
Our Lost Arrow Rebolting Project • Bolting the Lost Arrow...
👉 Learn and SHOP at www.hownot2.com/shop
👉 Best EMAILS on Earth: www.hownot2.com/signup
👉 SUPPORT US and get gear discounts hownot2.com/support
👉 10% off ROCKY TALKIE by clicking www.hownot2.com/rocky
![TRASH or PASS! Eminem ( Houdini ) [REACTION!!!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cB1WrZcMwMc/mqdefault.jpg)
Please start your comments with "I watched the whole video: ......" OR "I DIDN'T watch the whole video: .........."
I ain't watched it all yet but I will later.. thanks for all y'all do ✌️
nah
I watched the whole video... at 2X speed
Thats like asking a youtuber to Put "This is clickbait" in the title.
I watched the whole video: There is a minor amendment that deals with most of the no funding equals blanket ban concerns. Something like "If a climbing plan has not been published for the area in question, the installation or replacement of fixed anchors may be approved in writing by any NPS/USFS officer assigned to the area."
Sure, it would give officers too much authority long term, and has some minor risk of officers abusing discretion - but if the current state is zero control, than allowing a recognized exception simultaneously gives motivation for the land managers to create a plan in heavy use areas, and allows areas with little use to skip much of the bureaucracy.
I watched the whole video. I work for a government regulatory agency, so this sort of thing is pretty familiar to me. My take is that there's a difference between reasonable high level guidance (NPS: We're not banning bolts, just ask first) and actual implementation (NPS: We're delegating this work to individual park management units and low-level supervisors with no additional funding). That second part is what I'm concerned about, and it seems like the climbing orgs do too: These policies give a LOT of power to local, low-level officials who may not have the time or expertise to perform the MRAs and thus will just fall back on guidance that fixed anchors are "installations" and should be avoided whenever possible, climbing community be damned.
In short, I don't have a lot of faith that the local officials administering each park unit or USFS area will be able to adequately or timely assess the MRAs and applications, which may indeed stifle safety improvements and route development, even if both are in good faith. While the overall policy is reasonable from a safety and land use perspective, I fear the implementation will be a patchwork clusterduck depending on who the local manager is.
Considering how SCOTUS stepped in and removed the EPA’s ability to create laws or regulations last year and how Chevron Deference will be ended soon, the USFS & NPS will not be able to make these rules enforceable without Congress. This is textbook for democrats to do though… over regulate for no reason. FJB
100% agree! “May-issue” statements will result in the default “NO” answer to everything from everyone but the most sensitive, observant, and astute public land managers. When faced with time/budget concerns and various other conflicting allegiances, “NO” is what you’ll get. The policy should require “shall-issue” statements.
Can I replace a rusty old … NO.
Can I explore a new … NO.
Can I add a bolt to this difficult sec…NO.
As our government crumbles around us due to massive incompetence, excessive burden, depleting budgets, and higher priorities, saying “YES” will be the last thing on a regulators mind.
@@philliphutcheson4219 Lol the regulation was passed in the 60s. This is people finally realizing that under the current regulations as written, bolts are illegal and have been for a long time. If this were over regulation, it would be a hard and fast ban, nationwide. The only 3 objectives of the policy proposal are, and I quote, "1. Provide climbing opportunities that serve visitor needs and that meet land management
and recreation policy objectives.
2. Provide climbing opportunities that emphasize the natural setting of NFS lands and that
are consistent with applicable law and directives and the applicable land management
plan and climbing management plan.
3. Provide climbing opportunities that align with management and protection of natural
and cultural resources on NFS land"
Weird how over regulation involves so much providing opportunities. /s
@@LeCharles07 good info, but it’s awfully funny how once Chevron Deference is overruled in June how this won’t matter or be enforceable. At all. It will at time take the regulatory body, I.e. Congress, to make a law regarding this.
@justinhagler8257 They definitely could have highlighted the possibility of volunteers (climbers) aiding in the creation of MRAs and propose amendments to them. The framework is clearly there and mentioned but not highlighted. "Tell us why bolts are there/why you'd like to put bolts there, and we'll make sure it's recorded and reasonable," should be a clear message, but it's not. It could also make sure the information is clearly accessible so that when you're planning a trip, you know what gear you actually need so that you don't overpack (knowing how many quick links you might need, any trad gear that might be expected for a route that might use a mix of bolts and trad, etc.)
I DIDN'T watch the whole video: nice video
I have not watched the whole video, and am not a climber at all. I would rather see a few bolts or webbing with rappel rings in Wilderness areas than broken beer bottles, trash, and piles of unburied shit and toilet paper. Untill the government and their laws fix that issue I say bolt on.
Agreed. Where I live, they just banned parking too close to a crosswalk… whether or not the curb is painted red. Which is funny because thieves break into cars with impunity. So if cops see someone break into your car, they may just give you a ticket instead.
Why does this happen? Because the state is failing to function effectively, so it focuses on actions it CAN take in order to justify its continued existence and flex its authority on those who still fear it.
@@thedownwardmachine Based...
I hear you, but parking on the street should be illegal in the first place. Cars are personal property, and streets cost a TON to maintain, so why are we paying for you to store your personal property on public land? That's what street parking is, even if it's metered, it's still public space that is was taken from the people and designated for individuals to store their private property on. That's WORSE than leaving bolts in a cliff face by far. @@thedownwardmachine
@@KoroWerks >we paying for you
Were all taxpayers idiot. They paid for that street to exist, and public land is for the use of the taxpayers.When you register your vehicle, you paid for the right to park there.
@@KoroWerks All ICE cars pay gas tax which in turn pays for road maintenance. They are funding the roads they use. I can see bikes and EVs not being allowed to park or use roads since they don't pay for the upkeep personally...
Watched it all.
One of the big problems with the climbing plans is the use of 'should' and 'may' along with 'when funding is available instead of 'must' and 'shall' and specify some amount of funding towards a fixed anchor management plan. They can decide to just not make a management plan and there is nothing you can do about it; they can also say that they want to, but just don't have the time or budget for it.
You did catch the use of 'timely approval' but no specific dates are given. It isn't uncommon for an accused person to wait months in jail for their constitutionally guaranteed 'speedy trial'. That's a whole other topic and let's not get into that on this comment section...
It also puts the plan and management upon the park director and does not list a recourse or appeal process other than probably sue them somehow, then it will take years and just put the park management at odds with the climbing community. This can create a patchwork of wildly varying rules for what are essentially the same conditions around the country.
The management plans as proposed also do a bit of waffling between the responsibility (or lack thereof) of the parks and the climbing community. They take no responsibility for what is up there yet they are able to dictate what and where fixed gear is placed by climbers.
Currently the FA owns the route because the climbing community overall allows it. If it was more of a 'great job, thanks for establishing a new route, we'll take it from here' and not some now sacred route that any changes or replacements need to be approved by the FA, if they are still alive and you can find them or if others even believe that you did get permission from the FA.
Now that a lot of developers are getting supplies from local climbing coalitions, manufacturers donations and national groups such as the ASCA can a FA really claim a new route as theirs when some amount of the gear was provided by the community?
Maybe a bit of a silver lining could be that a park could decide that a power drill running for 30 seconds or so per hole is a lot less disruptive than hours of hammer and chisel pounding noise and allow replacements or new routes to go up quicker/ more old gear replaced per day.
The reason that you can't build a shed without a permit and approval is because they already took that away from you; it's best not to just let one restriction justify more.
NPS isn't in charge of their budget. Tomorrow, some whacko legislator could zero out NPS's budget for toilet upkeep. don't laugh, it was tried.
@@danoberste8146 I'm not surprised that has been tried. While they are in charge of how much money they do get they could state that climbing and bolting policy must be completed by X date and they must budget time for it. Then possibly say that it must be reviewed every so many years.
I made the same comment about power drills,…. And most of my comments are about keeping the government out of what we do,… and to regulate it?…. I could just see the government stepping in and saying “my clip board says you’re bolting all wrong”…. What da’ fu€ do they know?
@@heli400 All bolts and drill bits will need to be purchased from some Raytheon division and ordered through recreation[dot]gov with an extra $2 fee per order. 🙄
100% agree. The problem is the many “may-issue” statements, where it needs to say “shall-issue” and require a funding mechanism. Haters gonna hate, and regulators gonna regulate. Since the default answer is allowed by this policy to be “NO”, that’s what it will generally be especially when up against funding and time constraints.
Here in France they choose a local association of climber and give them a permit. Once a year the governement and the association discuss spécific requirement on Hardware, route to restore or New route to set and these association will earn a budget to work with.
I like this, I feel like governments should be there to set standards and manage the distribution of power.
Halfway through the video so far. Section 4 (MRA stuff) is the most troubling to me, as it has some vague statements like "step 1 of the MRA process determines whether accommodating recreational climbing opportunities is a necessary activity to administer the wilderness area." What does "administer the wilderness area" mean?? Further down it discusses considerations like the climbing history of the area etc, but it still leaves the door open for a park to decide that climbing is not a necessary activity for people to enjoy the natural area and therefore not prioritize considerations for fixed anchors going forward, which could leave that area in a state of limbo where old anchors can't be replaced and new anchors can't go in. We can only speculate where or if that might happen but the text as is allows that as a real possibility. And my perspective is more for supporting some bolted rappel stations than supporting grid-bolted sport crags in the wilderness btw.
I said it in another comment and I'll say it again: Tat nests in a state of constant decay used as anchors or rappel stations on alpine routes are MUCH more of an eyesore and safety hazard than putting in a couple bolts that are basically invisible and will lasts for decades. Almost every alpine climb I've been on I've cut and removed old tat and / or left my own new tat on descents, and it sucks knowing that somebody in the future might trust what I leave behind long after it has been sun decayed and is no longer safe. I've also left brand new cord and rap rings behind (sturdy, thick rings) and come back to a climb just a couple weeks later and it had been removed, either because somebody thought it was old and unsafe or they wanted the rings for themselves. Such a wasteful process, and the few routes I have revisited since bolted rappel stations were put in were both cleaner and safer afterwards. Examples in WA off the top of my head: The Tooth at snoqualmie pass (2x bolted rap stations now from the shoulder to the snow field), and the SW arete on SEWS at Washington Pass (one or two bolted rap stations so you can avoid rapping off dead trees or standing in the gully where rock fall is common). Higher traffic areas are safer with bolted anchors and/or rappel stations, and telling people to "climb clean" is BS if you've ever left a sling behind on descent.
While the policies definitely leave a lot up to interpretation, I think it is important to recognize that not all wilderness areas are for climbing! Having language that specifically allows bolts, or doesn't leave wiggle room for rangers to make a call on a case by case basis, might end up with people driving a bunch of bolts places that have zero climbing value.
For example, Isle Royale National Park is mostly Wilderness area. There is no established climbing there. It's probably not bad that it is kept that way :)
@@HowNOT2 Yeah agreed, we don't need to climb the entire world. Still, vague language leaves the door open for a group of anti-climbing government agents to try and decide an area that has climbing already doesn't need climbing going forward so they freeze hardware installations. And if history is any indication of the mindset of climbers... people will still go there to climb and the anchors will slowly revert to tied slings and other tat off trees and boulders, which is not what I want to see for the future of climbing.
Watched entirely.
My 2¢, the ethics system for bolting is currently working as it should, with a few outliers. Involving the US goverment will in no way improve the sport or its safety.
Those few outliers are the problem. I think the best, realistic solution is to promote a voluntary reporting system where people who bolt or rebolt areas should have an easy way to submit public and transparent information about the types and locations of the bolts they installed or replaced. There should also *definitely* be a penalty system for people who just grid-bolt the fuck out of a wilderness area. I know that I'd be happy to put my name out there publicly if I thought I'd done a service to the climbing community at large by bolting / rebolting an area in a way compatible with the ecology, history, popularity, heritage or an area. I don't think I'd be happy to attach my name to a terrible bolting job. Accountability increases quality.
Is it working? If it was that why do bolt wars continue to happen? I am a contrarian when the local bolt wars start happening. When someone chops a bolt they don’t like my knee jerk reaction is to go to the local cliff (on public land) and chop all the bolt then place them in useless locations just to prove the point of how arbitrary the issue is. The climbing community (here) likes to think “If I established it, it’s mine.” Well legally is not. If I want to dry tool a popular rock climb who is anyone to tell me I can’t? Just my smelly opinion.
government has always been involved - these are publicly held assets not private - yes we should all have voting power back to this
the sport has scaled - this is a natural evolution in the sport people have been predicting for decades - get real
Still watching the video, I am not American and I live in Italy where bolting is maintained by the mountain club which ensures good practices.
For what I know this is still in a legal grey area, there are no laws about bolting. I still think more than a permit you should get a license to bolt, one which should be renewed once every 10 years to keep up with tech advancements. This way you’re the judge of what you’re doing but still doing it safely. If you relay on permits the waits would be so long you won’t ever wait for a permit
I watched the whole video: I was ready to get informed THEN jump on the bandwaggon of complaining to the managing government bodies. BUT once I was informed it seems like super reasonable management. They want to know what's going on within land they manage and balance the various goals and uses of the land. Thanks for the breakdown, it was refreshingly informative.
Mental flexibility to change your opinions is a strength, not a weakness.
Overall, the plan seems reasonable, though I think the one failing of the plan is the lack of resources for parks/forests to implement this. Perhaps some way to fund it would help greatly (maybe a nominal fee to apply for a permit or something similar would provide the needed funding, make it say a similar cost to purchase the hardware for ~2 bolts).
I DIDN'T watch the whole video, yet, but my local crag is on a national park and they banned any more sport routes being made and any repairing of the current routes (real safe). Then, after declaring this, the government used our tax dollars to build a path to the crag and put up a metal sign which reads "To Climbing Area."
Talk about mixed signals.
They want you to fall, get hurt, sue them, then give you a bunch of money. How nice of them.
@@LeCharles07 Sort of.
They want me to fall, get hurt, sue them, then give me a bunch of hard-working taxpayer's money (including my own which they previously took from me), so that they can use the incident as an excuse to outright ban, or heavily regulate, all climbing.
Same thing happened in my rural town with skateboarding. It was against the law to even step on a skateboard on the sidewalk. The police drove around and followed me and my friends waiting for us to step on our boards. We were able to get a skate park built (a few ramps on a basketball court), and the police would sit in the parking lot to insure we all wore our helmets. If we were spotted skating without a helmet they would confiscate our boards and write us a ticket, on top of searching our belongings for "illicit drugs."
Trust me, you don't want to invite the government to have oversight of your hobby.
Ryan is wrong on this one.
Did they ban it? "and they banned any more sport routes being made and any repairing of the current routes"
or did they remind folks that they have to get permission first before doing it? 🤨I'm guessing the latter. If I'm wrong, please provide a link to the NPS rule that totally bans it without any exceptions.
@@danoberste8146 You're guessing wrong.
Links don't work on RUclips comments, but nice try attempting to stump someone stating a factual statement.
You can find the crag as the Saloon in Tucson, AZ.
@@njerseydavid Show me on the doll where climbers hurt you, poor little snowflake.
Cry to daddy government some more and show the world how dedicated you are to your authoritarian ideology.
I watched the whole video. While I appreciate your optimism I think you glossed over the definition of bolts as hazards. Area managers are ultimately evaluated on risk management and many will not assume any optional risk. I have led a coalition to rebuild a historic trail damaged in a tornado $40,000 and hundreds of man hours jumping through hoops to ultimately acomplish nothing.
I hope area managers will someday value access on par with monitary and conservation concerns but I have my doubts. Buraccracy creates systems of rules with no motivation to acomplish undefined goals.
Watched the whole video.
My issue with this whole plan is that it assumes that park/land managers have expertise that they likely don't have.
All hobbies involving outdoor anchors/bolts - climbing, highlining, canyoneering - require a fair bit of specialized knowledge that most folks don't have. We don't think of it that way, but if you think about how you would explain "bolting is lower impact and safer than rapping off slings" and incidents like the Tahquitz death last year (and why rapping off tat is a thing that people do), and how long it would take to explain all that to someone, well... yeah, there's a bit of knowledge you need!
Gunnison NP for example is getting rid of climbing rangers because they don't have the budget for it - so that's going to be a whole bunch of knowledge that Gunnison NP as an institution will not have, if they ever implement an approval process. Having some combination of AF/AAC/ASCA be involved in the permitting process would make sense to me.
Maintaining trails, roads, bathrooms/pit toilets, parking areas - all of that is table stakes when managing a national park or wilderness. Anchors are much more specialized, and yes, it makes sense to me that someone with a vested interest in the parks' goals should have input in bolting decisions, but this policy doesn't feel like the right policy to implement.
This right here is the real problem about this.
Who are the experts that will be able to evaluate these MRA’s? The ranger that thinks that all climbing is a death wish because they only know about how many people get injured or die doing it in the park each yeah without having any idea that the spot is the one of the busiest in the nation?
I live close enough to a National Recreation Area where a bunch of people die (Delaware River) and many of the locals are too scared to go on the river because the only thing they know about it are how many people die.
It’s just gonna end up being a blanket no more bolting policy.
Please also look into the process otheraproved user groups have gone through to access land. Any restriction creates years of delays. I have had to pay for resurveys, insurance and professional trail planning for hiking trails only to have them canceled after $40,000 was payed. Because we might interfere with the natural coridore next to a clear cut site.
I feel like the climbing community should have a system to prove that the equipment we are using to bolt routs is up to the standard that the rock needs. like having a certification course so to speak that tells people that you know what you are doing and that your not just doing stuff on a whim. another thing is on reblotting routs we need to have a system to tell bolters if a rout needs to be re-bolted. like on mountain project have a side that says hey the hangers on this route are pretty bad and should be replaced and if enough people tic that box someone with experience can go and fix it. the whole point is that i think the park system wants to reduce the liability they have when it comes to their visitors and making sure the main piece of safety equipment is up to snuff would give them the confidence to allow new routes and other things to be installed.
Even just a system to keep track of what has been installed, where, and by whom... Imagine if you could just run searches like "routes with galvanized hardware greater than X years old", or respond to a hardware recall by looking up every place that hardware has been used.
Of course, running such a service wouldn't be cheap. Practically, it'd probably have to start as a pilot program in one location, and it'd probably have to be some developer's passion project (read: unpaid labor) until the concept was proven.
@@SnakebitSTI Honestly, it could just be as simple as a public google spreadsheet. The expense/difficulty is surveying all the equipment out there, and recording it all.
@@Flamingskullkid ... and data validation, and creating a good schema to begin with, and providing a convenient means of accessing the data for people who aren't familiar with writing database queries.
Public Google spreadsheets aren't very scalable.
Both BLM and USFS have sawyer requirements to build approved trails. Try 10,000 and crazy insurance requirements to allow 1 volunteer. If they could deligate this to a group that manages “ route bosses” maybe. When the gov does it no one can afford it.
Agreed- something akin to professional licensure. It would probably take a new, government-sanctioned non-prof to administer this process, collect donations, and oversee disbursement of funds/gear to certified route developers who submit grant proposals, and for the NPS to defer its rule-making authority to this one process.
I watched the whole video and found it informative and well reasoned. Thanks for taking the time to address this Ryan. I am an AAC and Access Fund member but now understand a whole more than about the NPS/FS proposals and am actually ok with it. Cynically, I’d guess that no money and inconsistent application will be the usual Gov’t / bureaucratic cluster-F*** but that doesn’t mean the policy is flawed.
Thank you. The policy in and of itself doesn't seem that bad. They just want to set the policy on a pile of crumbling rocks. So when we are told to leave feedback on this policy, it's confusing because the policy doesn't seem to be the problem. The government as a whole is.
@@HowNOT2Yeah. Based on this video, it sounds like effort should go not to opposing the policy but to lobbying for better funding for the organizations that are meant to implement it.
I've just begun bolting climbing gym holds to all the rocks. I usually use multi colours to keep the aesthetics of the rocks beautiful.
Overall the proposal does seem to be quite reasonable, though the lack of resources/funding to implement it could end up being an issue. Some initial funding to develop a climbing management plan would be good if possible.
Maybe adding a nominal fee to the application process (say the cost of the hardware for ~2 bolts) would probably be a reasonable way to fund the process of reviewing the application.
application fee prevents automated spamming etc too
I watched the whole thing. good insight. I wonder how far the word "emergency" can be taken. over all, I don't see a problem with the language but the variability of a specific ranger's opinion on how a bolt should be placed and how many are needed is going to cause trouble eventually. to me, this largely looks like UAS: most people will do it "illegally" and no one will care until someone gets hurt (physically or emotionally), then this law can be used as a legal bat to hit offenders with while also removing the governing agency from liability.
I mean, it seems like all they are restricting is the acts that have gotten or nearly gotten climbing banned in the past. Doug Robinson might as well have written it. These rules aren’t that different from those that already exist in other places like Joshua Tree, bears ears, and other areas where climbing has conflicted with natural resources or other uses. Think of it this way: if the park service is able to force only use of stainless, titanium, or rock colored powder coated hardware (like metolius offers) then it will be harder to make the case to ban climbing or bolting outright over common concerns. Bottom line, it will probably only force you to do what responsible members of the community are already doing. And yes, I watched the whole video!
bingo
I am at minute 39:00, so have not run the whole thing yet. Around minute 20:00, you passed over an important point. At the top of the document it says something like "Permits can be required for individual actions or a blanket policy for the Park can be put in place"... in other words, the Park can just have a blanket policy - which is basically what we have now. And then the document goes into all this detail about what a permit and what a process of evaluation would look like for an individual action. (I paraphrase). Essentially, this is exactly what we have now. Currently land managers can require a permit and permit process like this. But most realize they have neither the resources nor expertise to operate this bureaucracy, so they don't. They do a policy that works for their land. But, thank you for actually reading it and realizing it is not that big of a change. Personally I think it is throwing a bone to the Wilderness Purists, without actually making a substantive change.
I watched the whole video, You have answered so many questions I had. Thanks for the content.
I DONT KNOW WHATS GOING I JUST WANT TO BE ANGRY!
YOUR ANGER IS TRIGGERING ME!!!
Super appreciate you going through this & help interpret it a bit for folks. I read through them myself & also thought the proposals sounded generally reasonable. I work for a federal land management agency & am a bolter. It seems the access funds alarm bell language is a bit over the top, but appreciate that they are helping people engage. "This sounds like it was written by a trad dad... some bolts ok, but not too many!" Ha!! Loved that :)
As I a Brit I am watching this and totally lost for words that in America it sounds like (for now at least) you CAN just go and bolt new routes! I get the outrage from people who don’t want that to change and I don’t blame them but Jesus you have it good over there!
That's cause we said no to the King years ago. We'll fight to the death over laws! Merica f' ya!!😂
Yeah... I am shocked by the realization that the only thing preventing me from running to the hardware store, buying a cordless drill, lag bolts, and 5 minute epoxy, walking out into the wilderness, and installing a bunch of wildly unsafe bolts is climbing etiquette. Etiquette! And the same etiquette says that if someone like Bobby found my incredibly dangerous bolt installation, he should do nothing about it without asking me first!
The current state of affairs is absurd.
@eugenearchibald7375 Sure do, confederacy. Lol
What’s the system in the UK?
@@estherpark3443 Most outdoor climbing in the UK is done on what we call access land which is basically open areas of hillside, mountains, moorland etc which we have a legal right (since 2000) to go wherever we like for recreation (walk, run, cycle, climb etc). However it’s still somebody’s land (either a private individual or an organisation like national parks) and so to drill and bolt rock would be legally the same as drilling and bolting into the brickwork of somebody’s house. It’s their property and criminal damage is I’m guessing the most likely outcome if caught. To make matters worse, most of our outdoor climbing sites are in designated sites of special scientific interest meaning that the penalties for disturbing or damaging the wildlife, geology, etc of the area come with big penalties if caught. It’s for all these reasons that trad is pretty much the only option at most UK outdoor crags. The exception are designated sites where organisations like the British Mountaineering Council or regional climbing clubs have acquired climbing crags and own them, or have agreed bolting rights with the landowners so that sport routes can be put up. Mostly these are old quarries and typically the climbing is not the most fruitful and they are generally speaking few and far between. Aid and big wall climbing are pretty much non existent over here, and with the rules preventing the public bolting their own new routes it means that trad is the only option to go and be creative and put up new routes although it’s virtually impossible here given the size of our island to find unclimbed rock. That’s my understanding of it anyways! The freedom in America to go onto the wilderness, create a new route up and bolt it is really quite astounding from the perspective of a Brit with out stuffy uptight laws. Hope that helps.
We watched the whole video. Thanks to you and your crew spending the time putting it together, it makes getting through reading legal documents a little easier. Also read the ASCA, AF, and AAC posts who’ve also help share awareness and guidance too.
A lot of the matter seems to hinge on the Wilderness Act and defining an “installation”.
Honestly, the USFS’ proposed directives and the NPS' DRAFT both look reasonable…on paper that is. Primary concern is the actual management and carrying out of it by staff that is likely already busy enough with an already limited budget, (and who knows what "personal" issue they might have "bolts". And in some ways incompatible with some aspects of development/rebolting.
It’s understandable where many areas of concern are. Redtape that can pretty much implicate not being able to any necessary work in regards to "bolts".
It’d be nice if the EXPLORE Acts gets approved. If not, well, hopefully the USFS and NPS can get the positive support & help it’ll need and could use to help streamline permits and land/bolting assessments. It’s a rather oversimplification.
But all in all, MORE climbers (and those in related activities) need to understand outdoor climbing ain’t free; and the need to be more proactive, provide more resources/time/money, and band together to take better care of the areas we use. Yes, that requires sacrifices.
nice
I watched the whole video and from what I'm seeing, my concern is that this ends up being handled similarly to the system for backcountry camping permits. While I do not have a huge problem with the management plan as a whole, I do worry this will result in a confusing process that if not followed exactly can end with criminal charges for simple mistakes. The most recent example I know of regarding the backcountry camping would be the issues that youtubers Eric Hanson and Dan Becker had during a life threating situation in Grand Canyon national park. The Group ended up camping slightly outside of the designated area due to confusing statements from rangers as well as deep snow covering the area. Eric ended up facing some serious charges and had to appear in court for what most people would consider a simple mistake during a very stressful situation. I actually think managing climbing would be a good thing but do not have faith that the government institutions will be reasonable throughout the process.
Government involvement makes everything worse.
Every. Single. Time.
I by accident figured out the proper medical name for the condition I had 15 years ago - also in US, near Mt. Whitney after like 20h last leg hike out from JMT. The condition is called Rhabdomyolysis. It is severe break down of muscle tissue.
I'll never understand how people think that involving government employees somehow makes them safer or the situation better..
@@NotTheRealRustyShacklefordMuch of our good outdoor recreation land in the US only exists because the government banned development on it.
@@SnakebitSTIYou are correct but that was a while ago and government was much smaller. It ain’t that way now.
For enforceability, yes that's obviously a challenge. However, if it's simply illegal to bolt or destroy bolts without a permit then the only people you need to worry about are people who already don't care about best practices and asking permission first.
And, if something's illegal then you won't post it, you won't brag about it, and all your hard work goes unrecognized. At which point. . . What's the point of bolt wars other than petty vandalism and the risk of getting caught?
Why is the person who removes bolts from boulder problems; or unneeded added by whomever feels the need of more bolts ; is the vandal engaging in bolt wars?
I removed a bolt on a six foot boulder; the person placing it said; what if a six year old wants to lead it?
And an entire area in JTree was closed to climbing because of drilled pockets/ holds and another to to a grid of bolts.
Watched the whole video. Thanks, it was super helpful. My main concerns are how decentralized the guidance is, you can have a local land manager who doesn’t understand climbing and even their inaction could lead to a layer of not being able to update hardware that needs to be replaced.
Also generally I feel that getting permission from land managers creates a barrier than some would just not bother with. it seems like most bolters are spending their own resources to provide a community asset. maybe the folks who are already responsible bolters would learn the permit system and it would be fine, but if someone is just interested jn bolting something new they now might not bother or have to be quiet about it.
I do like the idea of taking away “ownership” from individual FAists and that this could provide a minimum standard, however the language here seems to give that “ownership” to local land managers instead of a more high level “ownership” and if climbers are responsible for our own safety and the safety of installed hardware, we should maintain "ownership".
its still unclear to me where these designated "wilderness areas" are but i think ultimately its irrelevant bc this will provide precedent for guidance and legislation going forward.
if you replace a single bolt on an existing route and no one knows you did it, how would anyone ever know? to me this could effectively make the whole process less transparent in cases where folks are trying to hide what they're doing to avoid getting caught.
you can see an interactive map of all the wilderness areas here -> www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a415bca07f0a4bee9f0e894b0db5c3b6
I watched the whole video and I think you did a good job presenting the facts, etc. I think the fear is that a) Administrators will drag their feet completing any MRA's and effectively log-jam getting permits or b) Administrators will narrowly interpret the regulations in such a way that they deny all new or replacement fixed anchors on the public land that they oversee.
Are there any sport routes in designated wilderness areas? I really don't know. I do most of my sport climbing in Red River Gorge KY where the vast majority of sport routes are on recreational preserves owned by the RRGCC or other privately held lands (Muir Valley). The regulations seem to completely rule out the possibility of sport climbing in designated wilderness areas the way some of the policy was written about "bolted rock faces".
I watched it all. I think you commented on everything very well. I'm not American but I've climbed a lot in the USA and all over the word.You have produced a great video. I heartily agree with you that the bolting situation in the US is wierd and very different to the rest of the world including the UK, where I am from an bolting is rare.The idea that you must ask the first ascenionist to rebolt or improve a route is crazy. If they need replacing or they have been done badly it should be done regardless. I think it's crazy to bolt something so badly that it's still dangerous. Either don't bolt it all and leave it trad or if you bolt it bolt it properly so that it is safe. This is the approach everywhere in Europe, including the UK, and works well.
I watched the whole video. I work in environemental permitting and have done some permitting for the maintenance of Park infratstucture such as power lines, They are very slow, some of our environmental reviews are close to 10 years old for things that would prevent a forest fire. I also do some guiding and trying to get a response from any one for permit in wilderness areas is very hard. I showed up to a forest service office and asked about who to talk to and discovered the reason I had not been getting any phone calls returned was they had their number disconnected and hadn't updated their website. The wording is super reasonable except for the funding, and timely response part. Also vaugely reminds me of the whole HK thing in Patagonia with the Compressor route.
I'm not a rock climber, but I am in the mountains continuously, and I do appreciate the voice of the climbing community.
It's logical something like this was coming. With a wave of new climbers who feel entitled to bolt anything because they can climb 5.12+.
Watched the whole video. I can always count on Ryan and How Not 2 team to save me from drinking the Kool Aid with this stuff, thanks as always.
I watched the whole video: That you so much for taking the time to put this together.
*I watched the whole video*
Great job! Worth the watch.
Amazingly reasonable PSA and needed for the average citizen.
Thank you for your service!
Seriously though...
Well done!
Watched it all. Very good communication skills. I wish a person could get "bolting certification," sort of like first-responder certification. Supposedly, bolting is by approval only out here in the red rock wilderness areas of NV. In reality, bolts go up all over the place without permission. The park has maybe one ranger who actually ranges.
I guess we should work to get the NPS and USFS more money to be able to do their ever increasing workload better.
Watched the whole video, and it honestly seems very reasonable, I haven't been climbing for that long and don't bolt so I had no idea that the current system almost anyone can just go and bolt a wall whenever they feel like it, I kinda figured a permit system would already be in place (especially for wilderness areas, I mean seriously). That being said your point towards the end that no further resources are allocated to the parks for managing this is a good one, as climbers I think that is the issue we should take with this proposal. Oversight is fine as long as the parks are given the resources to actually do their job reliably.
I watched the whole video.”I always do” I foresee the over complication of bolting is going to nave people putting bolts in secretly. They will have to post or close these routs because people don’t all have the tenacity to do the right thing. I like that there are groups of people such as yourself that replace and maintain bolts in a safe way.
There was a Canyon in Arizona that I was in always brought slings to replace old worn ones as part of the community. And than one trip through there were 3/8 stainless bolts installed in shear. With stainless quick links. The bolts were glued as well. We tested and used them that day made the route a little faster connecting in. We were surprised to say the least. Than about 3 months later we went back in and made the first jump. Than found that all the bolts were cut off and half assed slings we’re back in place. I’m glad I still had my slings with me. Had to replace the last one that was on its way to slip from a rock pile. Beautiful canyon though about a 12 hr hike.. there are still a set of rescue bolts at the top ledge to the last repell the one that has only a rock pile to anchor to.
I WATCHED THE WHOLE VIDEO:
Interestingly enough, there was a Supreme Court hearing today on the Chevron Doctrine, questioning if organizations create laws/policies out of thin air.
- As an overall principle, the trend is to over-regulation. Once regulations are in place, they are there for eternity.
- I always drift towards fighting for less regulation overall.
- Also the principle of stewarding the beautiful outdoors, as opposed to fencing off humans FROM the beautiful outdoors.
Those are my three thoughts on all of this. Over-regulation throughout history always has a stifling effect on whatever hobby or activity is being targeted.
Further thought:
Remember if/when this long long long set of binding regulations are in place, and an anti-climbing individual is in charge of an area, just like that, one more step of liberty is eroded away. It will be cost-prohibitive to challenge it, and the result will be a cooling of the hobby.
Honestly, I find it very disappointing. These people need to create pages and pages of regulations for every field it seems. Nothing can be left untouched. It's just disappointing. Same with campgrounds, open areas are little by little being blocked off with no option for input from us :( Ahhhhhhhh :(
Amen.
Yeah, the core "reclassify how we interpret long-standing law" that is done by all agencies is de facto law making, and should be considered as such. Generally I think a change like this, whether I'm for or against, should go through the law-making process. That line is hard to define though.
@@rickgreer7203 It absolutely is defato lawmaking, because they carry the weight of law. Your life can be ruined by running amuck of a "rule" that congress never has touched.
Do we want our outdoors valued and cared for? ABSOLUTELY!
Do bolts on the side of rock faces that nobody can even see from the ground ruin the landscape? I really really really don't think so...
I watched the entire video, I am so glad someone that has a voice in the community came out and broke everything down in a logical digestible way. In a perfect world people would take care of the backcountry and we would never have need for this. But such is life...
I watched the whole video. It sounds to me like they want people out climbing and using enough fixed protection to be safe - if an area doesn't have the resources to implement a climbing plan, they'd probably be on board with community members volunteering to help do it.
I'm on board with there being some oversight for bolting and re-bolting.
I watched the whole video. I would propose that this these rules not be implemented until each federal area has developed their MRA, and has procedures in place.
These seem like the most based directives a government has ever published to me. I don't get what the fuzz is about. The only thing these rules do, is to clarify things and establish guidelines and rules, a common ground for everyone to follow.
Here in the Alps, we have all of this already since many decades, with the only difference being, that they come from the Austrian / Swiss / French / etc. Alpine association and not the respective governments. Which isn't really necessary, as these associations are in a way the government. They provide funding, guidelines, government assistance in decision making, websites, etc. and almost everyone respects these associations and their rules.
I think this is a good thing for you guys over there in the US.
Thanks for providing perspective from another part of the world.
I hinted at this in my top level comment, but my guess as to what really happens in most parks where there is a lot of climbing is that an association is formed and the park management sets procedures that they do the review. I'm not far enough in the regulation to be absolutely certain that's allowed, but I'm pretty sure it is and there's a long history of managers working with associations to do stuff like this instead of having to have actual employees doing it, which is basically the same model. I'd honestly be kind of surprised if it's not exactly the same model and reality is the Austrian/Swiss/French/etc government actually have legal authority to do it but just in practice always defer to the association.
@@christophercraig3907 @christophercraig3907 At least in Switzerland, the "Swiss Alpine Club SAC" is the regulatory body for everything regarding mountains and it's sports. And they work closely with the department of military and sports in thing which involves law like land ownership and stuff. Also the department pays a good chunck of money to the association in form of helicopter flights, infrastructure and more. But the department leaves pretty much all the ruling up to the SAC. Which itself is made of highly skilled and knowledgable mountain people, not some kind of bureaucrats which I think is a big part of why most things they do work really well and are accepted by most.
Also Switzerland is small and a pillar of our society here is to talk and involve people. To find compromises. And if you are kind, and have a plan, most people are happy to allow you to establish routes :)
I haven't watched the whole video yet, but it's worth clarifying at this point that the bolting currently allowed in Wilderness must be done by hand drills. No motorized equipment is allowed period in Wilderness areas, and that includes electric drills.
I went to The Evergreen State College and met many environmentalists who ended up working for NPS. Some were environmental extremists who didn't want any development anywhere.
These folks are now in senior positions in government and are the source of these policies. They simply don't care about safety, it's all about keeping people out.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks for your insight!
That’s a Bingo! That is the end goal.
Remain in your cage and drink from your tube. 🎉
Thank you for sharing the information. I, like a many others, also took the time to read the policies and not take the Access Fund and AAC's dramatic headlines at face value. An excellent example of just because its on the internet does not make it 100% true.
Having watched the whole video: How much do you trust the NPS/FS? The objective seems reasonable, but a permit system that does not have a mandatory response time and a default response of permit if not acted on can easily become a de facto ban by simply ignoring the applications. If there is no money/people provided and permits are 'as funding and resources allow' then the government can completely respond with denial to all applications due to lack of resources to process the application.
Trust isn't in the system as a whole as this isn't not creating a unified central management system. It's each individual management area creating their own system. That's both good and bad. It means that you could have a cranky bastard that refuses to approve anything, but it also means the people approving aren't in some office 1000 miles away, so there's a chance you might be able to chat with them directly.
I haven’t watched the whole video (about 75%). Many people probably don’t know about the bolting ban in the Bitterroot National Forest / Wilderness outside of Missoula, Montana. This document that we’re concerned about at a national level uses the same language that the forest service is using in the Bitterroot. There, bolting and new routes have been prohibited for I think over 2 years while the forest service works on a climbing management plan with our local climbing coalition. This “collaboration” resembles a lawsuit more than teamwork. If you think the government moves slow, just wait til you have to work with a non-climber to implement a climbing management plan. Meanwhile, a local organization of out-of-state hikers aka Friends of the Bitterroot is vehemently opposing us, going so far as to chop bolts and destroy trails and belay ledges. My fear is that this is what people will run in to at a local level following the passing of this document. For some people, like us in the Bitterroot, Wilderness climbing is all you have. It only takes a bit of ambiguous language in a federal document to raise enough controversy to ban bolting “until further notice.” If you comment on the document, please push for completely unambiguous language that allows our sport to continue safely and in harmony with other activities and the wilderness we love.
This is great discussion
I watched the whole video:
The proposed policies are not as doom and gloom as they're being made out to be but we should get the Access Fund and climbers involved in helping to make this policy the best it can be for climbers. Why not have a say in the matter? We don't have to just accept the policy or only rage against it, there's a middle ground to be found here.
There should be a certification process for bolting imo, you shouldn’t be able to bolt on public land without any formal training.
Up until recently, i was on the Colorado Front Range. Some of the bolting projects there could be defined as crimes against humanity. Permits please.
That assumption seems self-evident, but I was unable to find any official or at least reputable data which correlates the number of deaths and serious injuries in climbing with local laws regarding route setting and bolting certification. In fact, most accidents have been blamed on old / damaged bolts and anchors (and personal gear), rather than on improperly installed ones. Despite that, the language in the proposed policy doesn't include any obligation from either side to properly maintain and replace existing bolts and anchors, while making it much harder for an individual to do so on their own.
I'm all for making climbing safer but getting government involved is a slippery slope.
@@r3beatty Find the developers and deal with it as a community. If they're that bad at developing what makes you think they'd be better if they completed some half day government certification class and paid some fees?
also, plz name crag(s)
And who will conduct this training, what will the curriculum be, will there be different levels, how long is it good for, how much will it cost per person?
Never invite the government to regulate your hobbies.
I kinda like the idea if for no other reason than it provides helpful data for tracking a bolts age and if it needs to be serviced. We might even be able to generate useful science by tracking bolt installation and failure more rigorously (which sounds like something HowNot2 might be into).
All I have to say is unless your right up on the rock wall you can't even see the bolts in the rocks. I mean climbers miss bolts that are in front of their faces so it's not like it stick out like a sore thumb. Also is they are worried about preservation of parks then to be fair trails and hiking destroys parks to and most of the time even worse. And what stick out more than bolts? All the trash hikers and weekend warriors leAve behind. In some cases u can see trash from miles away while you literally have to be looking for bolts to find them. To the average eye most won't even see them. They want to save the parks start with making sure they stay clean before you worry about smaller problems. Like figure out why ppl are disappearing in our parks. Wby ppl can walk the same trail for years and see the same car or trash left behind. This is just the government doing government things. Meaning they do things without a real reason, the reason they do give is just enough so they can complain about the problem. Oh wait let's not forget about all the damage, rock bouncers, low range 4x4, and other off road vehicles do to national parks. I've seen entire cliff faces rearranged after one use. But no let's complain about bolts.
If the AAC, Access Fund, and even you (Ryan) were consulted before proposing the policy, they probably would not be receiving the backlash they are currently getting.
I think people are just worried that local managers who have never been climbing now have the power to tell climbers what they can and can’t do.
Ryan for President of NPS Bolting Division 2024 🎉
Yea I agree, this is yet another one of those things that could have been a significantly smaller public event if more stakeholders had been included in drafting the regulations. I recognize that doing that dialogue takes a lot of time and effort and money and leaves a lot of people dissatisfied (see IPBES), but this is a rare scenario where a lot of the parties who want a voice actually have some standing and lobby to throw around. That makes talking make more sense, and we’re seeing the consequences.
I think the NPS did put together some decent text here, but I do fear for their ability to enforce it effectively. I worked for the NPS for a while and we didn’t always have our shit together. (My work truck was a 1992 Bronco with no working hood latches). I’m cautiously optimistic about these regulations, so long as they can be implemented effectively. Totally reasonable for the government to want to know what the hell people think they’re doing.
I watched the whole video: and have to say it was great to actually go through the language
Watched the whole video. Kudos. I appreciate the fact that you did not villainizing the NPS or BLM.
For one, there are always two sides to the story, and it’s important to listen to both.
And for two, any social psychology will tell you will never change someone’s mind by just telling them they are wrong.
It is only by empathizing with the alternative perspective and finding common ground to start from that compromises and agreements can be reached. Not starting a shouting match and seeing whose voice ends up being louder, which is unfortunately what I’ve been seeing a lot of in the climbing community.
Empathy. Respectful discourse around disagreements. Compromise. Inviting and embracing the opportunity to be educated about the rationale behind the opposing opinion. Being humble and acknowledging when you might be wrong or misinformed.
We need the NPS and other regulatory organizations to WANT to work with us and we need to WANT to work with them, to recognize that we can help each other, rather than start a war.
Your example of BLM pitching in to build a pit toilet was a perfect example of this. Let’s figure out how to foster this energy.
For those tempted to kick and scream and blame and shame the NPS, ask yourself this: “Will your words and actions have any potential to create the change you are seeking?”
If the answer is no, stop. Take a beat. Think about a time that someone changed your mind and approach this conflict with the same tact. It’s okay to feel angry, but choose your words carefully.
Thanks Ryan for being a leader in our community. ❤
feel like im in class reading along but my teacher is ryan with sweaty armpits lol love you man
watched the whole video
From the perspective of Wilderness preservation, the issue of recreational installation and maintenance don't seem like valid arguements for the continued application of fixed anchors. No other wilderness use recreational activity makes exception to the ban on installing equipment permenantly. As someone who participates in multiple uses of wilderness, banning installation of fixed anchors seems totally within the scope of wilderness preservation objectives. And for those that really appreciate the landscae that wilderness pretection provides, keep in mind that allowing installation, maintenance and use of power drills in wilderness areas may set presidence for permition of similar activities in the future.
This is the answer climbers don't want to hear, but you're definitely right that it's within the government's powers.
Watched whole thing, also have watched this whole mess play out. I'm also from an area in Colorado surrounded by significant wilderness areas. One of my concerns is basically scope creep, we're seeing BLM for example threaten substantial climbing and hiking and trails in the Moab area for no reason whatsoever except rafters don't like seeing people camping on top of cliffs.
Beyond that, NPS and BLM and USFS are grossly underfunded in the actual operation and management of these spaces. This would literally result in an outright legal ban if implemented, I know areas where bolting moratoriums were implemented in Colorado back in the early 90's and there hasn't been a review since because there's no funding to re-review it. If you don't have the ability to properly handle it, just leave it alone. Land managers have no capacity to make decisions on this, where I live now for example, there's a 20,000 acre park that is closed to the public because the land manager doesn't even have funding to maintain the roads. Something as complex as anchor legislation is a death sentence.
But honestly, my criticism is that this is a solution in search of a problem, and should never have even come up in the first place, and for that single reason it should be protested to no end by everyone who cares about climbing. In actual wilderness areas, which I go to several times per year, there's not extensive pressure by climbers that is harming these areas. Even when I lived in Washington state, which I would consider the most dense area for proper wilderness area climbing, there's not a mass of climbers looking to do 20 miles of hiking to make a sport crag in the Enchantments or the Olympics or something, it simply doesn't exist anywhere. A more fruitful use of time and policy would be banning horses, they cause far more damage than climbers ever will and they are allowed, yet mountain biking is disallowed, which I am a biker, but also against bikes in wilderness areas, but that would be far more impactful to the goal and preservation that this will ever be. This is nothing more than an example of an institution with nothing to do trying to find something to do and some ambitious people that got the bug that climbers are somehow harming areas that climbers rarely visit that we should be restricted from.
And I'm all for proper hand bolting in wilderness areas, and following regulations within these areas, but this whole thing is insane and should never have been considered whatsoever.
California has lots of climbing in wilderness that is sometimes only a few hundred yards from roads.
Check out trying to do an FA in Joshua Tree.
I watched the whole video, seems like good intent. It seems the NPS policy requiring reason will have both positive and negative consequences. Taking the time for someone to assess this is definitely going to hinder the bolting process, but can definitely ensure that there won’t be some hardass superintendent that just doesn’t want climbers around (although it seems they have quite a bit of discretion in the matter) I wonder if there will be some sort of an appeals process as well…
I watched the whole video, and it seems that the climbing management plans can also be partial areas (for example, Lost Arrow Spire and surrounding access routes and connected highline opportunities) and could also be developed by volunteer climbers. It also seems that they may be open to the idea of using power tools if they will help minimize the impact on the area (for example, upsizing a hole or extracting an old bolt so the hole can be reused).
Your Lost Arrow Project is probably a perfect example. Though the plan would have been subject to public review when you submitted it, the fact that using a power drill is ideal to score the cone to extract the bolts may have gotten you permission to do that to make sure that you could remove the bolts you needed to. Also then the plan and what it should be is documented so that if tat does start getting left, it'd be easy to know what it should be returned to.
I watched the whole video.
I do watch the whole video of all your videos.
While I'm not a climber, I do like the equipment and rope testing.
Thank you
It's actually "untrammeled" not untrampled as one of qualities of wilderness character. Untrammeled: not deprived of freedom of action or expression; not restricted or hampered. A lot of people misread that because it's not a term people still use very often. I found this out because I used to be a FS wilderness ranger. Fun tidbit!
In Belgium pretty much all craigs are on private property, and bolting is done by one organisation. They also clean up the routes so they are nice and clean. All rock climbers pay around 30 bucks a year for a subscription to the Belgian rock climbing organisation for excellently bolted and cleaned up routes. Works like a charm.
Fixed would necessarily imply non-removable. "Words mean what words mean." - John Oliver
Rocky Mountain elk foundation pays for fuels reduction projects at western forests. Some forests cannot afford to do the work they need to to conserve the land they have been tasked with protecting, but work extensively with organizations to help meet mutual goals. Maybe a model like that where the access fund or another climbing organization helps pay for management would be something some districts would be open to.
It's wilderness. It should have NO work done to it or it becomes unnatural wilderness.
No money should be used for national parks and forest except perhaps to help prevent lives being lost from forest fires and for rangers to catch poachers.
Yes I watched the whole video.
I saw this bill on the mountain project and submitted my comments about a week ago.
I am watching the video. Bolters are heros! Carry on!
I didn't watch the whole 50 minute video because I saw another video titled "One Mistake and You Die" and I clicked it.
I watched the whole video and, not being a lawyer, the document seems entirely reasonable. I understand the fear that red tape will get in the way, but it's better than continued unsustainable growth and an eventual blanket ban on climbing altogether.
And we can say that climbers are the first people to care for the wilderness, but just this Saturday I went bouldering and these dudes brought their car up the trail instead of taking the 5 minutes(!) approach like everyone else. Climbing is no longer small local communities where everyone knows everyone and people hold each other accountable. It's a growing group where more and more people are unaware of whatever informal agreements and unspoken rules are in place.
So yeah, absolutely make sure that the language of the law is bulletproof, but also maybe get ready to formalise groups in each local community to bridge with the authorities and fight so that the climbing plan does get created and enforced in a way that satisfies all parties
Very good documentary. Just realized I wasn’t subscribed and corrected that mistake.
I watched the whole video and I'm really glad you made it.
I think you could have done a better job emphasizing that these documents are not laws that have to applied and applied universally today. They're GUIDENCE. The same way that the FDA creates the food code as guidance but leaves it up to your county health department to adopt the food code or write their own. There are health departments that use 40 year old food codes still and there may be land managers who put these guidance documents in a file cabinet for the next 40 years, mostly because they have no money. So in the mean time we have de facto ban. So we really need to continue stressing the importance of supporting your local climbing organization and helping them maintain a relationship with their local land managers. And if its a destination climbing area that could be impacted, support those LCOs, like Friends of Indian Creek.
I keep hearing this thing about bolts being less impactful than tattered soft equipment, but it's totally irrelevant because they're also considered installations. This really distracts from the huge issue that walk off social trails are so much more impactful than a few rap bolts. They can create so much erosion, can be super dangerous for the climber and those below them depending on the terrain. It does seem like the people writing this guidance understand, and I think most land managers will too.
I don't mind that ASCA and Access Fund are using these overgeneralizations and clickbait. It's just how media is today. When you look at climbing management in parts of Australia or Ontario, its pretty clear that we need them to pull hard to the extreme so that we can land somewhere reasonable in the middle.
I watched the whole video and these proposed new policy's make a lot of sense, if getting permits is practical and accessible.
Ultimately it will be the effectiveness of the permitting process that will determine whether this is a help or a hindrance to the climbing community. Process and timeline to issue a permit needs to be defined as clearly and as possible. For example: Permits that are approved will be issued on a monthly (or quarterly) basis. Denied permits will be returned sooner, some with specific feedback on how the request could improve and get closer to approval.
Expanding the Volunteers in Parks program could be a way to accomplish this, in lue of proper funding and staff time. Access Fund may not have nailed there PR about this, but currently the policy does need improvement to clear up the previously stated ambiguities.
Also it would be interesting to see what the turnaround time for current bolting permits, like at Rifle and JTree. This is probably the best indication of what these policies will look like in the real world.
I watched the whole video ... at speed.
I wish Australia had such policy statements in support of climbing. It would be a step up from our current situation.
#JustSayNoToCarrotBolts
Still watching... but applying for permits to bolt looks like a slippery slope with a lawsuit waiting for you at the bottom where you explain your qualifications, liability insurance, your responsibility for maintenance forever, and verify your route and its intended purpose i.e. climbing in general is safe.
Havent finished the video but the rules are clearly made by a/some climber/bolter who understands the climbing world and has read some new rules and is there to compile and protect the climbing sport ,before they come into effect and prevents anyone to even look at a bolt.
I think its necessary to understand that there will be some authorities taking control over what happens in their area and having someone keep track of things could improve things and if done right it shouldnt take years to replace a bad bolt ,but just a phone call away so to say.
I did WTWV, etc. and have looked at this issue since the first hue and cry was raised. First, this video shows that a random climbing hardware influencer is NOT an attorney, and should not be interpreting how new legislation is going to be applied. The crux hinges on the application or interpretive enforcement that a language change introduces, as a legally enforceable provision. The status quo has led to overall reasonable allowances, with climbers and agencies finding a path through that has worked well, with each area having a special additional set of provisions which reflect the unique characteristics of that place. Any wording in an oversight plan takes precedence over whatever details an area has developed, and the next administration could decide to apply that wording across the board.
Pro-use, anti-use, or whatever advocacy group garners the attention of an official, for whatever purpose, there is clearly a reason why some group has worked so hard to get this pushed through, and if passed, they WILL then advocate for its enforcement - and it is naive and foolish to believe otherwise.
Whatever allowances the language "may" allow or provide for will not matter, if someone decides that the specific language interpreted strictly demands a blanket ban on fixed anchors, however illogical that appears to anyone familiar with climbing.
"Common sense, historical tradition," etc. are just nice rationales which have no legal standing. And given the overcrowding of most park resources, any excuse to weed out numbers, in this case by discouraging a great portion of an entire user group without a direct ban, is an easy solution to part of the problem.
I guess we'll see who's right, in a year or so.
I don't think you should have permits for sleeping on the dirt, building a shed, building ANYTHING on your own property, or bolting your route. Maybe a permit for high popularity climbing areas but not everywhere.
I watched the whole video and Im glad I did as your last point is what I was going to write. Like you've mentioned most don't want to be bothered and won't mind but now they have to asses the plan, make guidelines added work for them may make them likely to deny with boilerplate reasons. So the requirement of justifying rejection might not be a big benefit. If it was properly funded and incentivised for them to do the work and be reasonably efficient this sounds good. But I wouldn't bet on it working as stated.
I'm on that boat right now. I like the policy, but if you can't afford it then don't throw the red tape on.
Yes watched...and...thanks for another great and informative video and shared perspectives..!!!
Been climbing on and off since 1968...Professionally in the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s...AMGA certified...and I have never once had to place a bolt for my "climbing activities...Then again Ken Nickels was my climbing partner for over a decade and will forever incite debate and controversy with his "ground-up" and "trad climbing" ethos within climbing communities...
Personally, I don't think the "rocks" give a hoot about some human putting a hole in them. In no time (geologically speaking), the bolts will come off anyway, so the point is moot. Yes, there is an impact aesthetically/psychologically on others who want to experience a "pristine natural setting," but like thinking something is "perfect" that is a state of mind and perception...NOT...an actual state of existence...on this planet at least...
A "blanket ban" is illogical, but strict guidelines and standards do need to be implemented somehow (as suggested in this video) as many "bolted routes" are very poorly done or unsafe...
That is a good easy to understand proposal. Thank you!
If you were out climbing with, or even at any crag that Ken visited its no wonder you never placed a bolt, may as well have just thrown it into a lake yourself, lol.
@@alexnone5720 Believe it or not...I've seen Ken place bolts before...His ethos was "from the ground up." So his ethos, at that time at least was not, "no bolts" just "ground up." He did get more strict (aka obsessive) with age. I miss his silly natural and incredible abilities as a climber. He invented sandbagging climbs as his 5.12 climbs where so far out of my reach that I never would try them...and I could onsight 5.13a at that time...Thanks for your comment...
@@HowNOT2 Feel free to quote or caniblize the comment for debating and/or confronting the NPS in any way you can. I'm not active in climbing much these days but still "follow along" when I can...
Scaling and Gatekeeping on the “budget” point would be difficult, but from the off road world; races/events essentially pay for the manpower of the permit review/approval process as well as any extra manpower required during the events as well.
Watched it. Good job. I read the whole damn thing before your video and thought it seemed pretty reasonable. I give access fund money but felt they were off base, too hyperbolic. I wouldnt mind seeing better guidance and funding for the folks implementing things so they the permitting process isnt slow. Like others have said. I also like wilderness to have the least imprint of humans as possible. A bolt here and there could help that goal… in other cases it would hurt. The environment is my top priority and the proposed guidelines seem like they would help that goal. Thanks for the good video and thanks to commenters for sharing opinions.
I watched the whole video.
Yep. Can you imagine trying to get a permit to bolt a new route on Mt. Stuart or Dragontail peak in the enchantments? Granted living right next to that zone and watching how it’s been trashed the last few years. I think they should limit even day hike permits for colchuck lake.
I think it’s a double edged sword, Like anything government related, good intentions, typically horrible management and implementation.
It’s reasonable to expect someone to prove they competent when they’re going to be installing life support equipment and to explain when and why to want to install it.
Knowing there are permits to go on a day hike breaks my heart...
@@NotTheRealRustyShackleford Yeah me too, but unfortunately seeing delicate wilderness areas trampled to death also breaks my heart. Some places like the enchantments are very narrow so they funnel all the people through the same areas, and the ecosystem can only handle so much abuse. I wouldn't be surprised to see day-use permits in the next 5 years ish.
@@NotTheRealRustyShackleford they’re self issued permits at the trailhead, unfortunately. That area got absolutely decimated during Covid and the resulting rush of new social media hikers in the following years. I’d love it they limited the day hike permits to colchuck lake to say, 30 a day in the summer time.
I did watch the whole video and I agree. I'm not sure the regulation as written is optimal, but I totally think both that textually a fixed bolt is a permanent installation and that it's insane literally anybody can put any bolt of any length and any material anywhere in a wilderness area, which realistically is what current law is. When I bring this up what I get back is that culture currently restricts it. But that's not law. You don't _legally_ have to ask somebody before replacing their rusty bolt, that's just the cultural norm. If somebody really wanted to retrobolt Snake Dike my understanding is that it's currently legal. I'll also get the argument that NPS won't really stop somebody from doing this if this is passed, but that's not really how law works. NPS can put them in jail. Right now they'll just be unpopular.
I also totally agree there could be managers who are terrible. We should protest those when they happen, but that doesn't in itself make the fact that a manager can manage bolts bad. My understanding is there is currently no requirement on how a manager conducts an MRA, so it is completely consistent with the law for the Yosemite managers to outsource the whole thing to a volunteer committee of climbers approved by the managers and end up pretty much where we are now, just with an actual documented process instead of having to figure out who put in these rusty zinc plated bolts and then track them down to ask.
Bro I'm not even American, but there's something oddly soothing about Ryan reading legislation lol.
Fact is the community is still going to replace bolts in existing climbing areas in Wilderness. And the rangers won't have the necessary resources to enforce it.
I watched the whole video:
I personally am a huge Process and Standards Maven. I think that you're right that we should pay attention to the fact that people's lives are in danger here. We would never let someone random build a road bridge. There should be Standards, People should be Trained, and there should be some form of Inspection and Oversight (random samples, etc.)
Correct me if im wrong, but wouldnt it be a good idea to put a tag on a bolt. Like a metal tag with a simple split ring or something to identify the hardware that was installed, who put it in, and the date lf installation etched into it. So their arent as many questions about what the hell something is.
But this would require a unified ID system to encompass current and future types of anchoring.
I watched the whole video. I am not opposed to the NPS or NFS wanting a say in what is happening on the lands they administer. One word that is missing in the entire policy proposal is "maintenance". Since "permanent" is subjective in alpine environments, their perceptions of climbing anchors may need updating. But I do not begrudge them the ability to ascertain that best practices are being utilized in appropriate ways and in appropriate areas.
I guess that the click-bait titles of articles are business-related and may have little to do with what is actually written.
Thanks for doing the video.
ps; when my partner and I were retreating off the Kautz Ice wall due to inclement weather and conditions, we found a couple of ice screws left in the ice. We left them too, set our own screws, rapped, and got the hell off of there. Leaving the screws was prudent at the time, but would be considered bad form under new policy?
Management by authorities can be reasonable and is possible, if entities cooperate. For example, in Frankenjura a public assessment happens when a crag is requested to be developed, involving all parties - government, environmental groups and climbers. The outcome is not always climbing-friendly, but nevertheless Frankenjura made it to be the origin of modern sport climbing. Maybe an example to learn from.
I don't remember all the video. BUT I Submitted my comments to the NPS and USPS. I am against the need of a permit to place anchors. I find climbers are pretty good at self-regulating themselves (look at how positive this discussion group is!!). Also there are very little environmental impact of fixed climbing gear. Also there are very little accidents due to the quality of the anchors nowadays. Most bolts installed are very strong.
I can understand the thoughts and desire for proper oversight. The question is: "is there a real problem? And, does this directly address those issues?" Otherwise, the easiest and cheapest form of oversight is to refuse all new permits. It will not be the immediate thing in all areas, but it only takes one bureaucrat along the chain of approval to decide they don't want to put in the work, or the park doesn't have the funds to do a proper evaluation, or just wants to go on a power trip and decides they want to watch you jump and beg.
The whole thing reads as a smart rich person (or group) that doesn't like seeing climbers messing up their mountain view. They know they won't win a battle to just ban it outright. So you make it about safety and environmentalism just a little oversight and regulation.
I watched the whole video and while I agree that some level of regulation isn't necessarily bad. It does open up the opportunity for shadow bans via inaction. Also, I really do like a well bolted face route which seems to be the primary sacrificial lamb of the proposed legislation.
I watched the whole video, thanks for doing this. A lot of politics these days seek to misrepresent the opposition and frame their position as something evil to rally the numbers to fight them, completely losing sight of the fact that a successful program is going to require working together. The first step is understanding what the proposals do and do not say and agreement on what the end goals (use of wilderness areas and safety) will require fromeach side.
This thing about having to ask the first ascencionist permission to fix the crappy bolts they put in the wrong location in the first place….it’s absurd!
I have spent 3000 plus nights in the Wilderness or wilderness. I was also a semi professional climber. The point of a big W Wilderness is that you need places that haven’t been improved to preserve everyone’s ability to have a place where they can enjoy natural beauty without being forced to see human involvement. Honestly i agree that there should be no permanent anchoring in the big W.