Dear HCN,
Climbing certainly
touched a sensitive nerve with some readers (HCN, 9/14/98). The
reactions (I should say counterattacks) brought forth complaints
ranging far from fixed anchors to mountain bikes and hang gliders
and even to garbage and toilet paper. Most of the writers lectured
climbers for not sharing their, presumably, better wilderness
ethic. One saw fixed anchors as the product of a new, “fun-hog”
generation of climbers. The charges against climbing included the
impacts of over-use and the harassment of eagles, which “it took
nonclimbers to point out.”
Neither I nor other
climbers take a back seat to others in defense of wilderness. The
vertical wilderness we seek doesn’t have manufactured, dug, or even
dynamited “installations’ such as trails, bridges, signs and
designated campsites. Climbers don’t want the amenities which our
critics rely on to exist in wilderness. One hundred feet of any
trail in wilderness has displayed, damaged and disgorged more rock
and soil than all of the fixed anchors in all of the wilderness
areas in America.
I’m proud that climbers follow
in the steps of past climbers, which include John Muir, Robert
Marshall and David Brower. It was David Brower who placed the first
climbing bolt on the ascent of Ship Rock in 1938. That ascent also
reflects two critical facts missed by all of the
writers.
Ship Rock is an exemplar of wilderness
climbing: long, committing routes on a big, remote mountain subject
to variable, unpredictable weather. Rarely can such climbs be done
without at least some fixed anchors, even if only for descent or
escape. Fixed anchors merely allow climbers to experience the often
wild and always unpredictable vertical wilderness. Hand-placed
bolts, pitons and nylon slings don’t bring the mountains down to
the level of a tame, controlled or necessarily safe experience.
Fixed anchors just give you a chance to attempt such difficult
climbs. And almost every peak that meets that criteria in America
is in a wilderness area.
Second, the technique
and equipment of hand-placed pitons, bolts and slings haven’t
changed since David placed the first bolt. This isn’t about new
technology, new impacts or a new generation of climbers. Most of
the anchors at stake have been in place for decades and were placed
in classic, traditional mountaineering style. And this points out
the most common mistake in this entire debate. In the words of one
of the writers, “the Forest Service’s anchor ban is a reaction to
what has become known as “sport” climbing.” Wrong. It doesn’t
affect sport climbing. Sport climbing areas are developed only
where power drills are used, not in wilderness areas. That’s why it
is the traditionalist, conservationist, even, if you like, “older”
climbers that are fighting the Forest Service
ban.
Like all recreation, climbing has adverse
impacts, and for that reason we organize cleanups, build trails to
prevent soil erosion and work to protect wildlife. The Access Fund
has a full-time biologist on its staff who works solely on helping
land managers protect nesting raptors. I don’t know of a
public-land manager who doesn’t acknowledge that climbers are their
best helpers in discovering and protecting
raptors.
Our basic position on fixed anchors is,
in the words of the Sierra Club, that “climbing, including the use
of fixed anchors, should be subject to the same strict management
standards as other recreational activities to ensure preservation
of the wilderness character of these lands.” The Forest Service
hasn’t banned garbage, erosion, nor even hammering bolts and pitons
(if hammered back out). It has declared that all fixed anchors in
all circumstances are illegal, even if it’s only a rappel sling at
the top of a 3,000-foot peak.
Period.
Armando
Menocal
Wilson,
Wyoming
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Climbing bolts in wilderness: An attack on the counterattacks.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
