The rock climbing community has long found itself at odds with park rangers. Very rarely intentionally! But today there is a silent battle between a small group of climbers trying to reform the wilderness act to allow fixing permanent anchors to rock in the wilderness.
The use of fixed anchors, also called bolting, makes routes far more accessible to the average sport climber. Without fixed anchors, climbers must build their own removable anchors on the wall as they climb (called “trad climbing”). This is difficult enough that the majority of climbers won’t do it, only the dedicated few. While fixed anchors in themselves do not have an environmental impact, any route that gets bolted in the wilderness will undoubtedly see a large increase in human activity that would harm the local flora and fauna. The Protect America’s Rock Climbers act is a misnomer at best, lie at worst. There are already hundreds of bolted rocks within the US, with more than enough sport climbing to last anyone a lifetime. Furthermore, if anyone wishes to climb in the wilderness, they are allowed to, provided they are dedicated enough to climb it in the trad style. It is far more important to protect the wilderness that we have left than it is to create a few more pretty rock climbing routes.
Being neither a climber nor park ranger, it’s really interesting to learn about these internal conflicts. I agree with the park rangers, these site ought to be protected, especially when the foot traffic is considered. But has the climbing community tried to develop other “trad climbing” like techniques that could be both easier and temporary? The conflict for the climbers seems to revolve around trad climbing vs fixed anchors, but I’m curious if those really are the only options. Again not a climber, but if anyone else is please speak up lol
Trad climbing is a bucket term that includes all types of removable anchors. As technology has increased, protection like nuts and cams have gotten lighter and stronger, making the barrier to entry lower. It still requires carrying in a lot of extra gear, carefully placing it, and taking care to remove it.
OH I see, I shouldn’t have underestimated the skill involved in safe placement. I’m sure good gear isn’t much help if you don’t know what to do with it lol, but this adds great context the climbers side of the issue thank you.
There was recently a discussion of this topic on the American Alpine Club podcast.
Also, you might want to crosspost this over to !greenspace and/or !sports. Just a thought.
I’ll give it a listen on my commute home. It will be a good counter point!
Question for people who do climb. Does the Trad climbing method do any harm to the rock face when being placed/removed repeatedly? Curious if there would be any benefit to the permanent method.
In terms of real harm to the rock, both permanent anchors and removable protection don’t do much damage. It’s mostly the aesthetics of permanent anchors being kind of ugly.
What is more damaging is the increased traffic to an area once it is bolted. Having to bring your own gear, and take it down afterwards becomes a barrier to entry that keeps wilderness low traffic. If you bolt a wilderness area, you can do things like make it permit only, but at the same time climbers are often known to just not get permits and climb anyways :). Then there is also the question of who’s job it becomes to inspect and maintain the bolts. Ultimately, bolts only make sense in areas that are already high traffic, where park rangers are highly involved and safety is a real concern. In my mind, the only reason to bolt wilderness is to turn it into non-wilderness. That’s maybe too pessimistic of an outlook, but it’s the only way I can read this.
