Author Topic: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing  (Read 3623 times)

strandman

  • Guest
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2011, 11:35:03 AM »
I'm not sure they still do it but- Moose and deer hit by cars were dumped down a gully across from the cliff. Very nice on a hot day.
The giant pile of propane tanks were also nice while they were in the area as well.

DWT

  • Guest
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2011, 11:37:47 AM »
yikes! I saw a pile of tanks recently.  Those definitley raised some questions.

strandman

  • Guest
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2011, 11:40:17 AM »
YA- to supply those God Damn huts. Wilderness MY ASS   ::) By helicopter

sneoh

  • Guest
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2011, 11:43:41 AM »
Isn't this all for designated "Wilderness Areas" only, and not general parks areas? I don't understand what the fuss is, if it is just for those areas. What I read seemed reasonable for select areas to preserve wilderness in all it's sense. Now if this creeped into being used for the whole forest, I would definitely oppose it. I don't see any indication that is so though. Correct me if my cursory reading was incorrect.
You're correct, Mark, this post is about areas designated as Wilderness within National Parks.  And, if you read my 1st post, you will see that only Congress can enact laws to designate (or remove) Wilderness areas, within land managed by NPS, NFS, BLM, and FWS.  Today, from stats published by NPS, 53% of land within National Parks is designated as Wilderness.  And from the wording, there might be pressure to add more.  Hopefully, common sense will prevent Great Head in Arcadia (NPS) and Rumney (NFS) from ever be designated as Wilderness! :)

Offline slevasse

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2011, 12:27:27 PM »
I don't see bikes as any worse than horses. Bolts VS Huts ? .....

There are still tons of bridges, shelters, trail signs, etc. in Wilderness Areas in the Whites (and I presume elswhere).

Any language regulating the occassional fixed anchor is pure hypocrisy as long as permenant instillations such as bridges and trail signs still exist in the designated areas.



I don't recall the exact wording but any structures (bridges, shelters, etc) in wilderness areas are only allowed to stay as long as they are safe.  Once their lifespan has passed the item is removed.  No repairs are allowed.  If you hike at all, you'll notice signs stating that certain bridges or shelters are no longer present and to plan accordingly. 

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2011, 02:28:37 PM »
Of course J . It's crazy some times, how about the "wilderness Trail" 200 cars, bridges, signs ,etc........
If you want a wilderness situation then-
NO HUTS
NO ROADS
NO TRAINS etc, etc, etc
Look at those two phrases;
I am concern about environment and I like to climb in equilibrum with the other user of the environment
I want to climb and I am not worse than the other

What is the best attitude?  As anybody can trash the environment (moose in a gully), if we are all togheter to fight those who go to far, we are going to fight a minority of people. If we divide our strenght against hiker, fisherman, 4X4, are we going to keep both the environment and climbing cliff?

strandman

  • Guest
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2011, 06:07:01 PM »
How about repairs to huts ? I bet they get upgraded all the time.

Wilderness in national parks ? I think the paved trail part way up Half Dome is more than a bit offensive. Unless things have changed, ALL of Yosemite above 4,000' is wilderness ?

The great Gulf has the auto road ? 
If the amount of damage done by climber was really weighed against other users, it would be farcial.

Offline slevasse

  • NEClimbs Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 91
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2011, 08:11:39 PM »
How about repairs to huts ? I bet they get upgraded all the time.

Wilderness in national parks ? I think the paved trail part way up Half Dome is more than a bit offensive. Unless things have changed, ALL of Yosemite above 4,000' is wilderness ?

The great Gulf has the auto road ? 
If the amount of damage done by climber was really weighed against other users, it would be farcial.

I'm not positive but if you look closely, the AMC huts while on National park land are not actually in wilderness areas.  The auto road also isn't in the Great gulf wilderness area.  It skirts the very edge of it and from the looks of the map, what parts that were just encroaching on it were rerouted. 

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&latitude=44&longitude=-71&zoom=7

Offline alpinetraveler

  • NEClimbs Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2011, 08:45:59 PM »
This policy is for congressionally-designated wilderness in National Parks and is part of a larger wilderness management policy that does include guidance for managing other types of recreation from hikers to horseback riders.  It applies to most of Yosemite as John mentions but also to other popular areas like the Diamond and the Black Canyon.  There has been more than a decade of debate about fixed anchors in federal wilderness because the Wilderness Act states that these areas should not have any permanent improvements unless they are the minimum tool necessary for managing the area as wilderness.  There is a long definition of what wilderness is but that requires more than an internet posting.  Check wilderness.net.  Motorized equipment (including drills), bicycles and timber harvest are not allowed in any wilderness. Nor are huts or helicopter landings/supply drops.  None of the AMC huts are in any of the 6 wilderness areas on the White Mountain National Forest (WMNF) and the Auto Rd is entirely outside the Great Gulf boundary. Trails, signs and bridges are permanent installations but have been determined to be the minimum tool to manage the recreation use in many wilderness areas.  Some wilderness areas have no trails (none in our neck of the woods). The idea of wilderness was that our nation would protect some areas from all forms of development and resource extraction.  It is a unique and American idea based on self-restraint (doesn't sound very American does it?).

The US Forest Service doesn't have a nationwide policy but the policy on the WMNF is that no new bolts can be added in wilderness but existing bolts can be replaced by hand.  The Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and US Fish and Wildlife Service all manage federal wilderness and they tried to come up with a shared policy but couldn't make it happen.  Some wanted no bolts at all and any existing bolts removed.  Others wanted total freedom of the hills.  What it comes down to is whether the bolt (improvement) is necessary to allow for use consistent with other wilderness values.  Through this draft policy the Park Service has said that yes bolts may be appropriate in some areas but if they're not managed comprehensively then wilderness values may be degraded.  If you research the history of the debate you may realize that though this may seem limiting it is actually a decent compromise for climbers. At one point it looked like all new bolts would be prohibited. The Access Fund worked with the Park Service to draft this policy and they support it in concept if not in entirety.  Check this link for their position statement on the greater issue of fixed anchors in wilderness.  http://www.accessfund.org/site/c.tmL5KhNWLrH/b.5014011/k.8B0B/Fixed_Anchors.htm  What I think will be interesting is how each National Park decides to manage the issue. 
Justin

sneoh

  • Guest
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2011, 09:06:54 PM »
What I think will be interesting is how each National Park decides to manage the issue. 
Justin
Yes, interesting indeed.  Thank, Justin for your detailed post.

strandman

  • Guest
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #25 on: January 25, 2011, 10:32:07 AM »
I do support and believe in the idea of a wilderness. I just think that SO much has been made of this when energies could also focus on some other aspects as well.
I did a route in an area that was not a wilderness area but now is. 22 years ago and the (few) bolts may be a bit nasty by now. So these bolts could be replaced, maybe, but only by hand. That's OK 'cause they were placed by hand. But the NFS gets to decide ?  I think that maybe some pretty experienced local climbers would be a better judge of that.

I have also experienced the Cloud Peak wilderness in WY and have rarely seen such trail damage (from horses), just amazing. 14 horses for 9 people and a giant fire, etc.....

Offline JBro

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1383
  • Doing God's work
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #26 on: January 25, 2011, 10:50:56 AM »
Quote
Trails, signs and bridges are permanent installations but have been determined to be the minimum tool to manage the recreation use in many wilderness areas.

And here is the issue I have with the rules. If trails, signs, and bridges are "minimum tools" to manage the historical use of hiking/horseback riding, then how can the minimal use of fixed anchors (and at one point they were saying rappel slings even absent hardware were considered fixed anchors) not be considered a minimum tool to manage the historical use of climbing...?

If anything, fixed anchors are more clearly necessary for and a historical part of climbing than signs and bridges are for hiking. There is historical precedence of fixed anchors in climbing that dates back to the some of the earliest technical climbs done in the U.S. - and this includes bolts. (David Brower on Shiprock 1939.)

It's a bunch of BS imo and it caters to majority rules (tons of hikers need their binky signs and bridges) and lowest common denominator crap along with the desire of some land managers not to deal with the "hassle" of climbing.

   
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

strandman

  • Guest
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #27 on: January 25, 2011, 11:03:53 AM »
Well put J- I would cringe to see the definition of a "sport climb" as per this. Is 6 bolts on a pitch too many ? 8 ?

Offline lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Posts: 1763
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #28 on: January 25, 2011, 01:13:32 PM »
Well put J- I would cringe to see the definition of a "sport climb" as per this. Is 6 bolts on a pitch too many ? 8 ?

I must say that the policy of the wilderness area authorized sport climbing: "If significant climbing activities occur in wilderness, a climbing management plan must be prepared or be included as part of the park's wilderness stewardship plan or another activity level plan."

Those plan must be prepare by those whit the sport climbing ethic and, also, the the idea of the wilderness park.

Before, in biology, we have a theory call mosaic: they describe the land as a patch work with clearly define borther where you can go from city activity to natural habitat in a short distance. Now they use the theory of continum. For example, in a lake, you have aquatic plant, after subaquatic plan, bushes that can leave the roots in the water, trees who need a lot of sun, bigger trees. in the wilderness plan, they try to have a gradation with no human intervention, little man intervention, little environmental activity (rural) no environmental activity (city). 

WanderlustMD

  • Guest
Re: New NPS Proposed Wilderness Policy and its section on climbing
« Reply #29 on: February 23, 2011, 10:12:28 PM »
What I think will be interesting is how each National Park decides to manage the issue. 
Justin
Yes, interesting indeed.  Thank, Justin for your detailed post.

I'm wondering if there is the possibility of a de facto bolting ban in an area until a climbing management plan is invoked...whenever that is.

I agree with an above post...more questions come from this than answers.