Dear HCN,
I used to assume that
those who played in the backcountry were sympathetic to those who
fought to protect it. But a new mind set, a category, perhaps even
a generation of people seems to be taking form. Spawned by the
glossy images of outside-oriented magazines, there are now hordes
of “been there, done that” weekend warriors in pursuit of high-risk
fun, whose only concern seems to be the marking off of a
recreational checklist. All these fun hogs seem interested in is
bagging Rainier, power-riding the White Rim Trail, or kayaking the
Lower 5 on the North Fork Payette. There’s nothing inherently wrong
with these activities. I do many of them myself. What concerns me
is when I strike up a conversation with someone, whether it’s on a
cliff, a river, or a mountain bike about the environment and all I
get is a blank stare and an “I don’t know, Dude, I’m just here to
have fun.”
Even scarier is that these same
people now have spokespersons – people like Armando Menocal,
founder of Access Fund, a climbing group whose sole purpose seems
to be to ensure that climbers can continue to climb anywhere they
want and in any fashion (HCN, 8/17/98). In Mr. Menocal’s essay he
attacks the Forest Service’s ban on drilling bolts into wilderness
cliffs. In an opinion wrought with melodrama and emotion, he
recounts how he and a friend had to beat a hasty retreat from a
mountain lightning storm, leaving a rappel sling behind in the
process. His act, he says, was criminal, according to the Forest
Service, whose ban he characterizes as “an attack on the wilderness
system.”
Give me a break. I seriously doubt that
the Forest Service intends to issue anyone a citation because they
left a nylon sling behind on a peak in an attempt to save their
life. The intent of the Forest Service’s anchor ban is a reaction
to what has become known as “sport” climbing. In essence, this
involves the congregation of a large number of climbers in one area
and the drilling of bolts, with attached metal plates, to a rock
face. The plates are then used to clip a carabiner into for
protection in the event of a fall or as a rappel point. The bolts
are placed there partly for convenience and partly because the
route might not be climbable without
them.
Incidentally, while bolts have been around
for a long time, their use has increased dramatically in recent
years. The fact is, there are numerous types of hardware used by
climbers for protection that are removable. The result of bolting
is a large number of shiny metal plates sticking out of the rock,
high foot traffic, trampled vegetation, litter and chalk marks on
the rock (used to keep hands dry). This is because sport climbing
areas tend to become well known and over-used very quickly. The
result is much the same as when too many horse packers congregate
in a small area; a situation the Forest Service occasionally deals
with using temporary bans.
But bolts aren’t
temporary. Bolting is nothing more than an attempt to literally
hammer a piece of rock into submission, thus lowering it to our
skill level. Who said climbing was supposed to be a risk-free
activity? If a wilderness route cannot be climbed without bolts,
then perhaps it just shouldn’t be climbed. There are more
accessible routes in this country, wilderness and non-wilderness,
than one person could climb in 10
lifetimes.
Which brings me to the International
Bicycling Association’s refusal to join the Utah Wilderness
Coalition. The reason: Bicycles are not allowed in wilderness
areas. Cry me a river. I race mountain bikes and love the sport as
much as anyone. But there are thousands of miles of beautiful bike
trails in the West that are not in wilderness areas. Bikes are
extremely hard on trails and are not very compatible with foot
traffic for many reasons, including the fact that mountain bikers
love to ride downhill as fast as they possibly can. I know I do.
This means locking up the brakes and sliding around corners,
tearing up turf and creating the risk that you will run into
someone going the other way.
Someone needs to
remind the recreation community that if it weren’t for restrictions
on the use of public lands, then there wouldn’t be any place worth
recreating in. We need to show a greater regard for the protection
of our rapidly disappearing wild places and existing wilderness
than we show for the selfish gratification of our own egos. The
recreation community needs to compromise and become part of the
environmental community once again. Divided, we can be assured that
none of us will benefit.
Brad
Purdy
Boise,
Idaho
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Love it by not leaving bolts behind.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
