SummitPost.org

Old news on SP, but here it is in a mainstream site:

http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/20 ... erness7694

The, uh, nut of of the issue is

Director's Order 41, Wilderness Stewardship wrote:"Clean climbing" techniques should be the norm in wilderness. This involves the use of temporary equipment and anchors that can be placed and removed without altering the environment (e.g. slings, cams, nuts, chocks, and stoppers).

Existing fixed anchors would remain, and it would be possible to get a permit for a new one.

I think we can all live with a couple of fixed anchors.

"Wilderness" by law means no man-made fixtures.

This means no fixed anchors.

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote:"Wilderness" by law means no man-made fixtures.

You mean like these...





ETC.........

Don't forget about these!

You have a good point Chief. Still doesn't justify fixed anchors, though.

Shall I also post photos of numerous cell & radio towers that are beginning to show up in both locales.... hmmmmm.

Good point Chief......

Given enuf $$$$$$$$$$

I reckon you could build anything you wished.

Except place a bolt....

Even if you drilled it with your FINGERS ONLY.

What gets ME is this.

The essence of CLEAN CLIMBING... is no hammers, so sometimes that little 3/8" bolt, is the only thing holding you to the earth.

But I don't expect THE GOVERNMENT to understand any of this.

They cant even come close to balancing their own check book.

But digging at climbers is a fun diversion.

Late

Guyzo wrote:Good point Chief......

Given enuf $$$$$$$$$$

I reckon you could build anything you wished.

Except place a bolt....

Even if you drilled it with your FINGERS ONLY.

What gets ME is this.

The essence of CLEAN CLIMBING... is no hammers, so sometimes that little 3/8" bolt, is the only thing holding you to the earth.

But I don't expect THE GOVERNMENT to understand any of this.

They cant even come close to balancing their own check book.

But digging at climbers is a fun diversion.

Late

True.

There are so many directions you can go in response to the fixed anchor issue. While I understand the benefit of not having permanent structures in the backcountry (other than those already grandfathered in), if your real concern is impact, then what about regulating horsepackers, and all the crap they carry in (and leave on the trail), or the emission of greenhouse gases that's making glaciers and snow packs melt, or interpretive signs, or even trail signs. Are they also planning on taking down the Cables on Half Dome or sawing off the railings at the top of Nevada Falls. Somehow I think not.

While I would agree that some people have gotten carried away, say, retrobolting routes on El Cap so that there's four or five bolts at every hanging belay, the cumulative impact of that is probably far, far less than a weekend's worth of exhaust from one Winebago.

fatdad wrote:There are so many directions you can go in response to the fixed anchor issue. While I understand the benefit of not having permanent structures in the backcountry (other than those already grandfathered in), if your real concern is impact, then what about regulating horsepackers, and all the crap they carry in (and leave on the trail), or the emission of greenhouse gases that's making glaciers and snow packs melt, or interpretive signs, or even trail signs. Are they also planning on taking down the Cables on Half Dome or sawing off the railings at the top of Nevada Falls. Somehow I think not.

While I would agree that some people have gotten carried away, say, retrobolting routes on El Cap so that there's four or five bolts at every hanging belay, the cumulative impact of that is probably far, far less than a weekend's worth of exhaust from one Winebago.

+1

Right. So your impact is excusable because it's smaller than others? Nevermind that it is for recreation only, whereas the impact that others have on the environment is often supporting jobs?

I understand the sentiment, and I find it hard to take when some things are allowed (i.e. cell towers, etc) but others aren't. But, at the end of the day, that still doesn't make the excuse of "our impact is less" any more credible. While climbing may be a "traditional use of public lands" (from the article), so are mining, grazing, logging and drilling. And many of us climbers bitch endlessly about those things.

I don't buy arguments about how little impact my or your activity is having relative to others, because everybody thinks their own impact is "just small enough" to be acceptable. Remember, oil companies are convinced that a couple of wellpads are pretty small and won't really hurt anybody.

builttospill wrote: Remember, oil companies are convinced that a couple of wellpads are pretty small and won't really hurt anybody.

Of course you do not drive a fossil fueled "OIL COMPANY" powered vehicle either, you most certainly walk everywhere and to ALL your adventure spots.... RIGHT?

Right. Earth in comparison to the universe is rather negligible, so why bother improving any of it?