Debate over climbing anchors in wilderness comes to a head

A debate over the use of fixed climbing anchors in designated wilderness areas has been simmering over the past couple months after federal agencies proposed new guidance that could impact their use.

The U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service released proposed guidance in November seeking to regulate the use of fixed anchors – bolts, pitons and other gear climbers use and leave behind after they’re done – on public lands protected by the Wilderness Act.

The policies would define permanent anchors as “installations,” which are prohibited under the law, and require an evaluation of the impacts of new and existing anchors in designated wilderness areas.

Climbers and climbing advocates say the guidance represents a change from past practices, and that the rule could threaten popular climbing routes in some of the country’s most iconic locations.

Ariana Kamaliazad, president of the Spokane-based Bower Climbing Coalition, said she also worries that other land management agencies could mimic the policy and limit the use of permanent anchors.

“It’s a bad precedent for the entirety of climbing,” Kamaliazad said.

Wilderness advocates say permanent bolts or anchors have no place in federally designated wilderness, where activities like mountain biking and riding motorized vehicles is also prohibited. They also say permanent anchors have always been considered installations but that federal officials have long declined to enforce the policy.

And yet they also have problems with the two agencies’ plans, which would create a process that could allow exceptions to the rule for climbing anchors.

“You can’t get around that prohibition through paperwork,” said George Nickas, executive director of the Missoula-based nonprofit Wilderness Watch. “It’s a good safeguard for wilderness. It reflects the idea that we accept wilderness on its own terms.”

The Park Service and Forest Service issued the proposed guidance in November. Both agencies are taking public comment on the documents until Tuesday.

The guidance from the two agencies is largely similar, and would apply to the agencies’ lands nationwide.

National Park Service Director Chuck Sams said in a statement that the policy “will help provide a consistent process for installing new or replacing existing fixed anchors in wilderness and ensure that we are managing these important areas for the benefit of current and future generations.”

The proposals come as Congress is considering the Protect America’s Rock Climbing Act, a bill that was a response to the National Park Service moving last year to prohibit fixed anchors in places in California and Colorado. The bill would codify the allowance of fixed anchors in designated wilderness, according to the climbing advocacy group the Access Fund.

Climbers use anchors to protect themselves from falls as they’re climbing or descending by running ropes through them. The hardware can make difficult climbs safer, and help climbers descend technical routes.

“We use these anchors to protect ourselves when we’re high off the ground,” said Matt Perkins, executive director of the Washington Climbers Coalition.

Removable anchors exist, and are preferred by those who practice traditional climbing. In that discipline, anchors are removed after they’re no longer being used.

Permanent anchors are placed by drilling into a rock and attaching the hardware. They’re often used in sport climbing and on single pitches. They’re the best option when there aren’t any cracks available for the placement of removable anchors.

Anchors have been around since the dawn of climbing, and the use of permanent anchors in some areas predates the Wilderness Act, but wilderness advocates see them as the sort of permanent human manipulation the act is meant to prevent.

“You don’t change the wilderness to make it more amenable for recreation,” Nickas said. “At its core, it’s both unlawful and just runs counter to the spirit of the Wilderness Act.”

George Ochenski, a renowned Montana climber who has made many first ascents, said putting bolts in a rock flies in the face of the “leave no trace” ethic espoused by many conservationists.

“If that’s a real ethic, we can’t be talking about bolts in wilderness,” Ochenski said.

To other climbers, however, the bolts are important safety gear that have little environmental impact. Perkins gave the example of a bolted route on El Capitan in Yosemite National Park, saying the bolts don’t have much of an impact on the look of the famous rock face.

Kamialazad said most climbers are careful about when and where they install bolts to preserve the sporting aspect of climbing and to avoid visual impacts.

“We in general have a legacy of stewardship and trying to protect the environments we play in,” Kamaliazad said. “I am not quite sure why the climbing community is being singled out as being a negative contributor to wilderness preservation.”

The policies from the two federal agencies acknowledge that climbing is an appropriate activity on federal public lands, but that it needs to be managed.

Neither document would fully ban the anchors, instead calling for an assessment of their impacts and whether their placement or replacement in wilderness is appropriate.

That process would also be used to evaluate existing fixed anchors in wilderness, and in deciding whether the hardware should stay put.

Climbers fear that evaluation could lead to the removal of bolts that have long been used on well-known climbing routes.

Kamaliazad said that likely wouldn’t affect many routes close to Spokane, but would impact some of the most famous routes in the country, in places like Yosemite and Joshua Tree national parks.

“It affects some of the most famous, highest achievement, biggest goals for people in climbing,” Kamaliazad said.

The analysis would examine whether the bolts harm the wilderness character of an area. Both policies leave open the possibility that the anchors don’t do any harm, and could remain.

Nickas said the agencies should look at existing anchors on a case-by-case basis, and leave them where it makes sense and remove them where it makes sense.

But he takes issue with the analysis in the first place and wonders what would happen if the agency made exceptions for other uses prohibited by the Wilderness Act, like riding bikes, motorcycles or snowmobiles or using chainsaws.

“In trying to regulate climbing the way they are, they’re just eviscerating the Wilderness Act itself,” Nickas said.