Is rock climbing compatible with Wilderness designation

[tkhuntsman]

Interesting article here. I’ve never thought about this. My initial take is that regulating rock bolts is a bit too far, but I know almost nothing about climbing.

What say you?

Feds propose climbing bolt regulation, restriction

The dueling congressional and executive-agency proposals deal with climbing bolts, particularly in wilderness areas, and have divided climbers and other conservationists over how the Wilderness Act should be interpreted and implemented across the U.S.

billingsgazette.com

Hmm no

 

[geetar]

They claim that's because it kills trees. I've hunted plenty of private land for whitetails and never killed a tree by using screw in steps!

I've never heard the argument for killing trees. I always heard it was because people would leave the steps in and it would injure saw mill workers years down the road when the step has grown into the tree and they don't know it's there.

 

[MTGomer]

I've never heard the argument for killing trees. I always heard it was because people would leave the steps in and it would injure saw mill workers years down the road when the step has grown into the tree and they don't know it's there.

That would make sense. Enviro terrorists used to supposedly do a thing called “tree spiking”

 

[BrentD]

Screwing holes into white oaks is a good way to induce oak wilt.

Mostly I see abandoned stands and steps. I cut a bunch of them down after a few years, but there are tons of them left (illegally) on public lands and the DNR and counties don't have the $$, of course, to cut them down themselves.

 

[Treeshark]

I've never heard the argument for killing trees. I always heard it was because people would leave the steps in and it would injure saw mill workers

Yep, same- not just injury, but it raises hell on the equipment.

 

[Bluffgruff]

I would think that as long as the wilderness bolts were hand-drilled, I could support them. I would accept 100% support from climbers on hunting, fishing, trapping, and access issues related to those as proper appreciation for my support.

 

[Creedance91]

I understand that the restrictions make it harder for them to enjoy their activity, but that is kind of the nature of restrictions. While they are drawing a hard line, I understand the perspective that permanent damage, although small, to a resource should not be taken lightly.

 

[atlas]

I would guess that a climbing area has less impact on big game than a lot of popular wilderness trails do.

 

[mtmiller]

I would guess that a climbing area has less impact on big game than a lot of popular wilderness trails do.

How is wildlife discussed in wilderness designation?

 

[Rie Bread]

These regulations have more to do with new climbing routes more so than existing routes. Specifically in the Bitterroot National forest fixed anchor ban. This ban is a bit more concerning for a safety stand point when climbing an unknown/new route up a cliff because in order to rappel in most instances requires leaving “ fixed anchors”. Iv heard that “ fixed anchors” could include chord left around a tree, which is a pretty extreme interpretation. However in wilderness leave no trace is a top priority and in consideration of which rappelling( aka escaping bad weather/ the route is unclimbable) might require “ fixed anchors”. Hence a conflict, as well as the “ instillation” of new bolts in wilderness.

Ultimately the impact of climbing is in consideration in relation to leaving behind “fixed anchors” which goes against LNT practices. I will say there is an especially special element to climbs that have zero fixed equipment. The adventure value is very high and when one goes with little information feels especially adventurous. The problem with the blanket no “installation” aka “fixed anchors” as I see comes to safety in retreating from a storm or unclimbable rock. Both require judgment but sometimes the best judgement doesn’t work out. So if a ban is implemented, you would be in the wrong making a decision for safety. Which I would equate to having a warming fire in a fire ban area during a snowstorm( which I know more than a few to get tickets for such actions). Obviously lots to consider. I will say that a bunch of goobers with headlamps yelling “ off belay!” Rappeling into the night definitely impacts other users wilderness expertise which I why I prefer to adventure where few do, just like how I like to hunt.

As far as bolts I’m indifferent. Iv climbed plenty of long beautiful challenging climbs with no bolts and plenty of classic climbs with protection bolts and two bolts at every belay. There’s a good group of climbing advocates that are top climbers and not foreign to politics. Certainly a happy medium somewhere in the future.

 

[Rie Bread]

Also the bitterroot fixed anchor ban is basically two parties in a pissing contest over public land access and gives climbing a bad name. Hunters understand these public land access issues well and climber would heed the example our recreation group has made.

 

[Bonasababy]

They claim that's because it kills trees. I've hunted plenty of private land for whitetails and never killed a tree by using screw in steps!

Who claims this? And where are you seeing they are banned? Not accurate. On WMAs they have to be taken down at the end of the day, but that's not a ban.

 

[Creedance91]

Who claims this? And where are you seeing they are banned? Not accurate. On WMAs they have to be taken down at the end of the day, but that's not a ban.

At least in MN, they are banned. Stands and cams can’t be up overnight.

 

[atlas]

How is wildlife discussed in wilderness designation?

I suppose it isn't I've seen plenty of bridges bolted into rock though.

 

[BrentD]

They claim that's because it kills trees. I've hunted plenty of private land for whitetails and never killed a tree by using screw in steps!

Certainly diseases like Oak Wilt will attack trees wounded with screw-in steps.

And they are hell on bandsaws and chainsaws.

I don't know about MN, but in IA, they are left sticking out of trees all over the place.

 

[rjthehunter]

Who claims this? And where are you seeing they are banned? Not accurate. On WMAs they have to be taken down at the end of the day, but that's not a ban.

You're wrong.

6136.0550 Subp. 4 Stands. "A person may use an elevated scaffold or stand if it is removed each day at the close of shooting hours and does no damage to trees or other vegetation. A person may not use a portable stand that is nailed, spiked, or screwed into a tree or that otherwise damages the bark of a tree. A person may not use spikes, nails, steps, or other devices that are driven or screwed into trees."

6136.0550 - MN Rules Part

www.revisor.mn.gov

 

[Sytes]

Ultimately the impact of climbing is in consideration in relation to leaving behind “fixed anchors” which goes against LNT practices.

Meatpoles installed in Wilderness by Forest Service - Leaves a remarkable trace of human long term installations. One example why your use of the word, "practice" fits everyone's position. (Welcome to HT, btw). Enjoyed your post. I like your "purity" of the adventure.

My position: We want wilderness to be a land untrammed by humans? Absolutely zero installment of any human action should occur. Make it as pure as the driven snow without human wizzing on the implied idea of such untrammeled land, where its primeval character and influence is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.
However, Frank Church, Wilderness Act legislative floor sponsor, later stated (1977):"Agencies are applying provisions of the Wilderness Act too strictly and thus misconstruing the intent of Congress as to how these areas should be managed."

End result, IMO, as purpose clashes with future generations interest, the "Leave No Trace" practice will continue to adapt so long as Judges rule in the following manner: “management of wilderness areas is done with both the purpose of conservation and of ensuring that the public may use and enjoy the areas.”

A cool read of judicial case law regarding the Wilderness Act is attached (.pdf). Arthur Carhart authored the paper in a very organized manner.

 

[Oak]

My position: We want wilderness to be a land untrammed by humans? Absolutely zero installment of any human action should occur. Make it as pure as the driven snow without human wizzing on the implied idea of such untrammeled land, where its primeval character and influence is managed so as to preserve its natural conditions.

As we considered grant funding for big game habitat, research, and management projects in our annual meeting yesterday, the USFS representative said that we should be seeking Minimum Tools Analyses for collaring projects where there is a likelihood that animals will spend part of the year within wilderness boundaries, even if the actual collaring occurs outside of the wilderness.

 

[Sytes]

As we considered grant funding for big game habitat, research, and management projects in our annual meeting yesterday, the USFS representative said that we should be seeking Minimum Tools Analyses for collaring projects where there is a likelihood that animals will spend part of the year within wilderness boundaries, even if the actual collaring occurs outside of the wilderness.

An oxymoron?

 

[atlas]

I worked on a trail crew in the Gospel Hump Wilderness for a summer. Every year, my boss and several permanent fire employees float the Salmon River early in the season. During this time, they try to clear as much trail as possible using chainsaws. There is a clause that allows them to use chainsaws early in the season in the Frank Church Wilderness, but can't later when hikers are more common to preserve the wilderness experience. Without that a lot of the trails would fade away like they had in a lot of the areas I worked.