 |
 |
|
Please reply with civility and use two hard returns for each paragraph... Thank you for contributing. Question 7. David Brower, who helped make the Sierra Club a national political force, recently passed away. Brower is credited with being the intellectual force behind the (U.S.) Wilderness Act of 1964 and campaigning succesfully to make it law. The Wilderness Act is considered by many conservation supporters to be one of the most enlightened environmental protection laws ever created. It is the law under which some portions (not all) of U.S. Forest Service and B.L.M. lands are designated "Wilderness Areas" and protected from development. Permanent structures, including fixed anchors and bolts, are not allowed in designated Wilderness Areas. There is now a major dispute between the recreation and climbing industry (represented by the Access Fund) and public land managers regarding this so-called "Bolt Ban". Brower is less well known for drilling some of the first climbing protection bolts in America. Below is this month's survey question: The bolts would definetly have to go.We don't need bolts to climb.We need(I need,not to mention the bunnies and bears)the wild natural places the Wilderness Act protects.The bolt bans are truley a pain in the wazoo and I feel bolts do not take away from the wildness of a place(unless bolted unresponsibly).But,come on, there is always something to climb you can walk off. If not, BASE jump it!!!! Mike Flactiff <cadence@ncws.com> Grass Valley, California U.S.A. - Wednesday, February 07, 2001 at 23:26:40 (MST) i would choose to have bolts banned, because alot of fun can be had without them, and how fun would it be if the wilderness was so developed that you had to wait in line(like in yosemite valley) to do routes in the sierras? or the cascades? matthew (cornelius) schutz <mattschutz@aol.com> fresno, ca - Wednesday, February 07, 2001 at 20:12:32 (MST) Ban the Bolts. There are so many other things to do in a wilderness area it is more important to keep the Wilderness act than to compromise it by allowing bolting. It is not a major restriction. The majority of climbs are possible with traditional protection. Bill Baxter <RockScaler@go.com> Pittsburgh, PA - Monday, February 05, 2001 at 12:52:50 (MST) I would rather ban the bolts. Ido appreciate those that bolt responsibly though if it comes down to protecting the natural state of the land or protecting a new rad route for someones ego, protect our natural areas. why do we as humans always feel that the world is here for us and only us? As climbers we are generally more un tune with the natural world, I think that a hightened respect for nature is inevitable with our fringe passion of climbing. There is plenty of climbing to be done without having to place bolts in wilderness areas, there's always trad climbing. If you need to rap, what about leaving gear, it's more expensive and harder to do but it's all part of the grand adventure. Daniel Hartigan <danilejohn@yahoo.com> Wayne, PA - Thursday, February 01, 2001 at 09:51:27 (MST) baning all bolts. Wilderness areas to be kept in most natural state possible. (including road and heavy use trails). L Johnson <lwrncjhnsn@surfside.net> La Habra, California U.S.A. - Wednesday, January 31, 2001 at 19:39:48 (MST) Wilderness is the most important resource we have. Revoking the Wilderness Act would be an extreamly stupid action that would lead to a complete undermining of our system of protected land. It could even lead to development of natural areas. Would you rather climb high above the trees or high above Suburbia? Rock Climbing is all about challenges right? Are you too much of a wuss to not meet and overcome the challenge of not using a fixed bolt?! I mean there's plenty of non-permanent equipment out there to attach your ropes to the rock. Make your own temporary anchor! There are plent of classes out there that can teach you how to make a low to no impact temporary anchor. And if you aren't confident enough to lead climb, find someone who is! Buddy up! I myself enjoy bouldering because its an extreamly low impact sport. I think the question shouldn't be whether or not the Wilderness Act should be revoked, it should be, can we climb without bolts? If you can't, your in the wrong sport. And in response to an ealier post about more bolts attracting more people to the sport - do you really want more rock climbers than there already are?! I don't. Eli Scott <sporkasm@hotmail.com> Norco, California U.S. - Saturday, January 27, 2001 at 00:18:45 (MST) To me the bones of the question is: are you willing to sacrifice climbing or wilderness areas. There's no way on earth I'm going to stop climbing but I'm also not confident enough to free climb. We need our wilderness areas and we need to protect our land as much as posssible. I'm not an environmentalist by any means but I do like to have a place, secluded from the infuence of humans. And, being humans, if we put our heads together we can come up with a new and safe way to climb other than bolts. Bolt me to the wall while they're up there and put up new ones for all I care but if it means nor more "wild" in wilderness, take them down. Cheltsea Wolfe <1wolfech@uvsc.edu> Orem , Utah United States - Thursday, January 25, 2001 at 19:25:00 (MST) To me the bones of the question is: are you willing to sacrifice climbing or wilderness areas. There's no way on earth I'm going to stop climbing but I'm also not confident enough to free climb. We need our wilderness areas and we need to protect our land as much as posssible. I'm not an environmentalist by any means but I do like to have a place, secluded from the infuence of humans. And, being humans, if we put our heads together we can come up with a new and safe way to climb other than bolts. Bolt me to the wall while they're up there and put up new ones for all I care but if it means nor more "wild" in wilderness, take them down. Cheltsea Wolfe <1wolfech@uvsc.edu> Orem , Utah United States - Thursday, January 25, 2001 at 19:11:42 (MST) i need your more good picture lukman hakim <lukmanthea@bolehmail.com> bogor, westjava indonesia - Wednesday, January 17, 2001 at 21:11:55 (MST) this is not a balanced choice because the wilderness act includes much more than the fixed anchor issue. why not ask: would it be better to have unconditional access to all public lands or no access whatsoever? either way, the blm would be happy because it would mean less paper work. robert goodwin <boboomow@hotmail.com> las vegas, NV United States - Friday, January 12, 2001 at 22:28:18 (MST) If it had to be, "revoking the Wilderness Act" or "banning all bolts", I would choose neither. I know that geologically rocks are supposed to decay and erode. A bolt here and their is not going to do more damage than weathering. Sure, I don't really agree with Sport climbing, putting up bolts all over a face, but a bolt at the top of a spire to rap off of is not going to do all that much damage. Joe P <amusement@juno.com> Belingham, Wa - Thursday, January 11, 2001 at 13:07:45 (MST) I have to admit that I am extremely new to rock climbing and probably have little right to respond to this question, but it seems that putting bolts on rock faces leads to a greater appreciation of the rock. Who knows the rock face better than the people who cling to them? I can see how someone would easily get pissed of when they are forced to climb past many bolts they don't need, but it all comes down to one factor: more bolts mean more climbers. I am not saying that we should go around putting an excessive amount of bolts everywhere, but an increase in the number of people climbing will lead to a greater appreciation of the sport, in turn increasing privledges granted to climbers. Perhaps a good way to resolve this is to divide routes, making some 'bolt-free'. As for the Wilderness Act, it acts affects more people than the entire 'bolting issue'. If our lands were not protected, the view from the side of the rock would be a great deal more disturbing than seeing a bolt you did not need. There are some things that need to be kept away from rock faces, whether they have eyelets or not. Chris Harbert <harbert.chris@usa.net> Columbia, Missouri - Wednesday, January 10, 2001 at 22:47:49 (MST) It has not come down to this choice! To even suggest that the limitted use of fixed anchors on some routes (many that already exist) would jeopardize the entire wilderness act is ridiculous. The Access Fund has been supportive of limitted use of fixed anchors in wilderness areas, where it does not have an impact on the envirnonment or experience. I would put forth a more appropriate question: If the Wilderness act would ban use of all fixed anchors, should it also prohibit all human intrusion into wilderness areas? The logic that would eliminate all climbing protection would also eliminate all roads, bridges, culverts, dams, walkways, trails, Gazing lands ect.... The simple act of walking on a patch of earth will have a permanent impact (footprint), forever altering the molecules that reside at that location. Please, banning of ALL fixed anchors is harsh. Suggesting allowing anchors could threaten the whole wilderness act is like banning all airline travel because planes leave skid marks on the runway! klay eckles <keckles@ci.stillwater.mn.us> st. paul, mn - Tuesday, January 09, 2001 at 13:15:34 (MST) An artificially limited choice, yields an artificially limited answer - ban the bolts. The Wilderness Act provides a wealth of protections for many things, animals and people. The Act has some problems, but is substantially worthwhile. Bolts provide protection for only a very limited subset of potential users. Bolts also have problems, but are substantially worthwhile. So, in an all or nothing proposition.... Creativity, primarily in the method of application of either the Act or bolts, could yield a much better solution than simply chucking one or the other. Mark Towar <mtowar@aol.com> San Jose, CA - Friday, January 05, 2001 at 16:02:34 (MST) This is still America, land of the "FREE". If you or anyone else thinks that you can stop me from placing bolts. For my own safty, or from climbing anything I wish. NOTE; YOU HAD BETTER BRING A LUNCH AND MUCH MORE! Like I said try! <cliffriders2000@yahoo.com> Any, az - Thursday, January 04, 2001 at 22:10:47 (MST) I would want bolts allowed to ensure the safety and possibility of climbing. Revoking the wilderness act is harsh but the greatest impact in popular and accessible wilderness, such as the Superstition's Siphon Gully trail is from hikers: spray painted markers, concrete benches, trail erosion and trash. I have bolted there and you can not see them unless I took you to them. Untrammelled areas are impossible under the act. Camouflage the bolt and no one will be offended except by it's legal definition. Manuel Rangel <mrangel@ci.phoenix.az.us> Tempe, Arizona - Tuesday, January 02, 2001 at 19:41:16 (MST) That seams to be a false choice argument put forth by someone who can't defend their position. Some of my favorite climbs are multipitch 5.8 face climbs where there is absolutely no means of trad protection. It seams to me that the same kind of lawyer that argued what "is" is; is the same type of lawyer that stretched "permanent structures". There are bigger problems like those who leave their trash all along the trails and such. Arthur Bonvie <abonvie@worldnet.att.net> Meade, MD - Saturday, December 30, 2000 at 16:48:18 (MST) In that radical choice -- Ban all Bolting. Basically, we venture forth where we can do so without diminishing the experience of those to follow. But I see compromises made in the wilderness for other users (hikers, riders, ...), and I hope some can be made for climbers. But preservation of Wilderness experience comes first. Phil Sidel <sidel@pitt.edu> Pittsburgh, PA - Friday, December 29, 2000 at 09:21:21 (MST) This is a question that has plagued land managers and land users since the early days of to the park system. I'm not talking about "bolts vs the wilderness act" but rather the fundamental question of how we as a nation view and use our national treasures. When John Muir invited Teddy Rosevelt to view the grand spectacals of Yosemite Valley, I would guess that at some point around the campfire the subject touched on "who gets to do what?" I don't imagine that either of them conceived of bolting or for that matter guided lama trekking or snow mobiling in these areas. The ONE thing they did understand is the need for human beings to have experiences in the outdoors. Our first National Parks were the result and the foundation of our national view of public land. As our nation grew and continues to grow, the pressure on these limited resources increases with no end in site. The Wilderness Act of 1964 was and is a statement of the values and ideals that we as a nation would like to see in relation to our open spaces. We want it for our grandchilderen's grandchildren to see and experience. It's a second layer of the original theme set by Teddy and John. The problem lies in the conflict this creates with our other values such as capitalism (I'm not attempting to demonize it as I believe we all have a right to prosper) and immediate gratification. With these values comes commercialization and heavy development. Think about it, if the Wilderness Act were being introduced for the first time at this point in our history, it would never pass. We must try to remember that the folks who apply the Act to reality are fightly an ever increasingly difficult battle. They are hit from all sides from every possible user group. Additionally all user groups would argue they are being "unfairly limited and singled out." I believe that if it were possible, no restrictions would be in place. But with millions of people visiting our parks and wilderness areas annually...well, you figure it out. This conflict will never be settled... As far as bolting in Wilderness Areas, my feeling is that ultimately, a compromise will be set forth that at least accomodates restricted bolting to allow for rappell stations and safety but will effectively eliminate sport routes. And I have a feeling that if all bolting is restricted we'll climb elsewhere till we can talk some sence into them! Dan Caston <climbnyak@hotmail.com> Richmond, Virginia - Thursday, December 28, 2000 at 13:06:53 (MST) I'd trash the Wilderness act, turn them into National Parks and sell remaining federal lands to homesteaders/ranchers/farmers/miners. Dwight Haymes <haymes@gte.net> Grover Beach, Ca - Wednesday, December 27, 2000 at 22:30:03 (MST) I'm Mitko from Macedonia. Mitko <PLANINARMK1@YAHOO.COM> Strumica, Macedonia Macedonia - Wednesday, December 27, 2000 at 13:10:28 (MST) If one is out there in the first place (Among whatever stones), they should just climb it IF THEY ARE truely up to it, and always be keenly aware of how to get down at all times. A bolt is something that I personally love to laugh at and twiddle around where I'm on a summit that would otherwize be an "Gimmie" usin' them bolts! There are Plenty of PRIVATELY-OWNED rock fields and mountains already being developed to accommidate those tho do not prefer to use their gear as a LIFE-SAVING (or sparing...) means of protection ONLY!!! Thus I say the issue should be moot, and public land managers who regarding this "Bolt Ban" as treapidation might want to think of their Childrens...Children; before being hasty with a drill bore! If our remaining recorces are permanately scarred, what of them (the future) to truely aspire to? Bolts are O.K. with me on private Property (As long as "common sense" don't say otherwise), but by the time the K2 and the whole multitude of Great Ones are BOLTED, the very thing that drives the climber on will drive us out! (Simply one Opinion, To each their own) In summary, I refuse to use BOLT's-etc. due to the feeling of cheating that they truely provide. Plus they are ugly; I will admit that a bolt placed properly (So only those who know how and where) out of the way is appreciated. Please take care, see ya! Jim Whelan <Jim@SpaceTruckin.zzn.com> Santa Cruz Mountain Region, Calif. U.S.A. - Tuesday, December 26, 2000 at 02:34:47 (MST) If you cannot make it up without bolting, it was not meant to be climbed by you. Bad enough to see jammed SLCD's corroding in a crack, Why shove bolts into something beautiful? steve <nah@nah.nah> nah, Connecticut - Monday, December 25, 2000 at 16:23:38 (MST) c'mon-isn't there some compromise between these two extremes?? neal <nealg1@earthlink.net> albuquerque, nm - Saturday, December 23, 2000 at 11:56:49 (MST) First and foremost lets remember we climbers are only ONE group of users, our needs should take no precedent over the primary purpose of the Wilderness Act. The Act (in all its shortcomings) must be preserved. If we start chipping away at it by allowing our bolts than the next active recreational user may say that his/her "vehicle" should be alowed to remain in the area. Next thing we know there is not meaning to the Wilderness Act and we are back to square one of all federal land being available for all uses (recreational or commercial). Come on guys, there are plenty of places to climb to get that feeling of solitude and freedom, go find them outside of designated wilderness areas. If you want to impact the outdoors in a positive manner, than get involved with your local environmental and recreational advocacy groups. Mountain Bikers, equestrians and hikers are all facing diminshed natural areas because of the manner in which the NPS and BLM, and USFS are commercializing our public lands in the name of "making money to operate them". Lets keep this in perspective and remember the big picture of why we have the act, not to exploit it for our own purposes, but to keep a piece of nature preserved in a "untouched manner" Laurel <laurelja@hotmail.com> Phoenix, Arizona - Friday, December 22, 2000 at 09:01:18 (MST) If you ask me, it is totally stupid banning the installation on fixed anchors and bolts. They are there to STOP the climbers using slings on trees and other various parts of the wilderness. If it is banned, more climbers will turn to free climbing which is a lot more hazardous especially for some of the younger, less experienced climbers. In my opinion, the structures should be kept in place so that the option of safety is open to the climbers. The only way to stop climbers using the areas are to surround them in electric fences and barbed wire, and I dont think that is going to happen. Chris <chris_king50@hotmail.com> East Grinstead, Sussex United Kingdom - Thursday, December 21, 2000 at 12:15:57 (MST) Yes we do have a problem and its not the banning of fixed anchors and protection. To me the problem is the selfish and radical enviromentalist that propose this stuff. They want to keep eveyone but themselves from having fun in the land of Mother Nature.If there is a problem with bolting then I have a problem with with the people that believe it. Bolts and fixed gear do not hamper or destroy the envorment. The only thing they do is allow the adventurous to have a good time. If fix gear is banned then everything eles should be too. Things like little kids that scream, the Boy Scouts of America that trash campsites. horses that that leave there sh*t on trials for you to smell and step in and even your dog. What will be next? It sound to me that they just want to lock it all up and throw away the key. I'm sure some people would love that. shabovstak <routemaster@climbrock.com> S.L.C, UT. - Tuesday, December 19, 2000 at 19:31:05 (MST) WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE... LOOK PEOPLE, IT'S JUST NOT BOLTS... IT'S ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS FIX PROTECTION! THAT MEANS CHAINS,PINS, RIVETS, BELAY/RAP STATIONS, RAP SLINGS AROUND TREES... EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU ARE A SPORTY, TRAD OR BUTT NAKED CLIMBER... NOTHING WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE PERMANENTLY LEFT ON ANY NPS, NFS OR BLM CONTROLLED LAND. THIS IS NOT A JOKE... IT GOES BEFORE CONGRESS IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER THEY RETURN FROM THE HOLIDAY BREAK... WAKE-UP AND SMELL THE ROSES... WE NEED TO REALLY GET SERIOUS OR CLIMBING AS WE ALL KNOW WILL BE ILLEGAL!!!!!!! Rick Poedtke <rockrat@cnetech.com> Hanford, CA - Tuesday, December 19, 2000 at 11:40:49 (MST) Personally, I prefer traditional climbing. I would agree to bolting only for a belay/repel station. I would say to Mr. Brower, don't climb if you have to place bolts up a route, eg sport routes. Dan Fischer <Fischerdrf@hotmail.com> Arlington, TX - Monday, December 18, 2000 at 12:12:08 (MST) Okay, Bolts should only be used when there is no crack system or other rockformations to put in protection. There definitly are some climbs out there that you just need bots to climb cause traditional protection would be in a runout. There has to be set up certain "rules" or guidelines dealing with bolts. Traditional Climbing is more expensive then sport climbing. I do not want to ruin the wilderness cause it is too beautiful to enjoy. Bolts won't destroy the beauty. They are often hard to find unless directly looking for them. They should be used as a last resort for setting a climb. Mabye the traditional climbers should help teach the sport climbers how to place gear etc. and that would lead to less bolted climbs and more difficulty in trad. climbs. Mabye. There is no easy direct clean cut solution to this situation Allison <ahaug@udel.edu> Coopersburg, PA - Sunday, December 17, 2000 at 18:02:02 (MST) While I would hate to see a ban on bolts in widerness areas, the wilderness act is too valuable to be discarded and would have to be my choice. It should not have to come to theis as the two are completely compatable. david mcgowen <survey33@yahoo.com> lawton, OK - Saturday, December 16, 2000 at 17:22:04 (MST) This is a ridiculous question because it will never come down to these two options. If, some one was shortsighted enough to do this...it would have to be to ban bolts. The Wilderness Protection is much more than just bolts...it protects areas for all of us, whether we climb or not. Dalton <dalton_parsons@excite.com> Salt Lake, Utah - Thursday, December 14, 2000 at 15:32:09 (MST) Bolts are not nececarally a bad thing. They give begining climbers an excelant chace to get on the crag and climb, however; there are state and national parks that have bolts and many of these places offer enough climbing variety to keep most climbers entertained for a life time. Those who seek the wilderness for climbing are generally trad. climbers anyway. The bolts can go, lets keep the wilderness and the sport real. Kevin <ishmeal84@hotmail.com> Pendleton, OR - Friday, December 08, 2000 at 11:10:54 (MST) I would ban bolts , there is plenty of climbing areas to keep climbers busy . The wilderness areas aren't all that many in comparision to non wilderness . David <david12@tidepool.com> Eureka, Ca Humbolt - Friday, December 08, 2000 at 09:15:17 (MST) This is a tough question, obviously. I am not of the school of thought that bolt anchors "destroy" the rock per se. Many is the time that I've tried to identify a route found in a book and had great difficulty in locating the bolts. However, I can appreciate the concern of those envoronmentalists who would ban them altogether; they're not natural and, when placed improperly, can be an eyesore. There must be a middle ground that will satisfy our needs as climbers as well as maintain the pristine appearance of nature. I am much more concerned with graffitti, trash and human waste improperly disposed of. I hear that there is poop on Everest that has been there for many many years. I favor a "Libertarian" attitude in this debate. Your rights end where others begin. Is there no common sense anymore? Ludicrous <ornrier@att.net> Lawrenceville, GA - Thursday, December 07, 2000 at 16:43:15 (MST) Bolts can be good, Bolts can be bad. It seems we can find a middle ground. Lyle Monzyk <lowellm@nospamrmi.net> Denver, CO - Thursday, December 07, 2000 at 11:51:06 (MST) I agree with Tom Jones, but, the fact remains that the Land Owners in this case are not in control of their land... We the people are not in control rather the Federal Government has assumed that responsibility with the initiation of the Wilderness Act! In doing so, we as the Land Owners, gave up the managerial position and have allowed Uncle Sam to make decisions without our input! With that said, they are in control and they are in the process of enforcing the Law. This includes ALL FIXED GEAR!!!!! SLINGS, PINS, RIVETS, BOLTS, ANYTHING! With that said, I must return to my original conclusion. The NPS, NFS and BLM have become a Coorperation and look out for the interests that favor their idealology and our position as climbers DOES NOT fit into their future plans. We need to start coming together as a community and we need to make a collective effort to save our rights. But in doing so, we are going to have to persuade the IDIOTS(FEDS), that we can manage ourselves and we must do it responsibly. After working for these CLOWNS for 23 years, I know what their intentions are and that they do have the power to do it! We need to start really getting involved and calling, writing or partaking in any actions that are processing these issues in our favor...(ACCESS, ASCA ETC). Rick Poedtke <rockrat@cnetech.com> Hanford, CA - Thursday, December 07, 2000 at 06:53:21 (MST) Bogus discussion based on gross dis-information. There is no conflict between the sacred Wilderness Act and use of bolts, and there never has been. El Cap was made a wilderness area with thousands of bolts in place - did this effect it's wilderness evaluation? Did the subject even come up? There is no conflict. Land Managers have had the authority to manage impacts in their areas, and their lack of doing so is due to other priorities and lack of knowledge. Don't claim there is a conflict - there is not. I choose both - full support of the Wilderness Act and responsible use of bolts. Tom Jones <tom@jrat.com> Salt Lake City, UT - Wednesday, December 06, 2000 at 20:35:15 (MST) If one must choose between no bolts or abandoning the Wilderness Act, then I say save the Act. That said, I reject the notion that it has to be one or the other, though. Wilderness areas should be as unimproved as possible and for that reason highly bolted sport routes are surely inconsistant with that thinking. At the same time, a few well-placed and camoflaged bolts on an overwhelmingly trad route poses no conflict to me especially if they only exist as rap points. If all bolts are prohibited as "installations", then one should include footbridges across marshy areas or streams, signposts, accomodations for horses (which rip up the wilderness by a quantum factor over a climber). The hand of Man is already clearly evident in Wilderness areas as it is. A few bolts and the occasional climber are certainly not a major problem to my thinking Alan Lindsay <ALindsay@networld.com> Sandy, UT - Wednesday, December 06, 2000 at 16:33:10 (MST) I believe that bolts are a very useful piece of climbing equipment that should not be banned. I do believe that we as a community should do a better job of policing our own ranks by teaching new climbers safe, reponsible and tasteful bolting practices. Note, this does not include (as long as the bolt is a safe anchor) the adolescent and retalitory practice of chopping bolts that might not fit ones personal standards. Chris Chesnutt <rocknut@attglobal.net> Chattanooga, Tennessee - Wednesday, December 06, 2000 at 15:51:29 (MST) I think that there are many very good points that have already been raised so far on this thread, some of which I can agree with, and some which I can not. The issue of whether to ban bolts or completely revoke the Wilderness Act is not a simple one. On the one hand we as tax payers have a right to use the land for which our taxes pay, and climbing is certainly a use of this land. On the other hand, to claim that giving up bolts would save the wilderness is completely wrong. Just because climbers stop visiting an area does not mean no else will go there. In order to prevent all destruction of wilderness areas they must be shut down completely to all human use. An then what exactly is the point of a wilderness area if not to protect a place from urban sprawl and be able to enjoy an experience without being surrounded by people or progress? At the same time, though, I agree that too much blame for the destruction of wilderness areas is being blamed on loggers and miners and people that are simply trying to make a living. They are not the ones to blame, although they do tend to be rather vocal and vociferous on the matter as they have vested interest. No, the people to blame are the lumber and mining executives, and the government/park services. (and guess what? the government answers to the taxpayers, so obviously we are not doing too swell a job!) I find it very difficult to defend the destruction of wilderness/old growth/ undeveloped areas by the logging and mining industries when these industries continue to prove to us they care about the almighty dollar, and not about the land they are using. The Japanese have 20 million board feet of lumber pickling right now in Tokyo Harbor because the price was so ridiculously cheap, even though they did not need it, they bought it any way. We, the taxpayers, foot the bill for an ever increasing system of logging roads that is more than three times as large as all of the paved roadways in the United States. The government subsidizes these two industries, desperately at times, simply to keep the jobs available. Not that I think the jobs should be eliminated. But if we revoke the Wilderness Act, wilderness as we know it will cease to exist, and when you hike three days into a valley in Montana, you will find clear cuts and skidder tracks, instead of forest and running streams. As a taxpayer, I firmly believe that I should be allowed to recreate in a responsible manner on public lands. Grid bolting is certainly not responsible, but then again neither is heading up a grade IV for three days without a bolt kit. All things considered I would rather place an illegal bolt in a wilderness area if meant saving a life, than turn over what land we have managed to preserve to the vultures of Logging and Mining executives, and the politicians. eamonn o'brien <hirread@hotmail.com> annapolis, md - Wednesday, December 06, 2000 at 11:53:21 (MST) Why all the fuss about bolting bans? There are plenty of places to climb and the idea that some of them are preserved wilderness seems logical. Think about it, if when you started climbing every face was grid bolted where would the adventure be? I know sport climbing is the be all and end all for some people. That's fair, but for those who want a wildeness experience there is a need to preserve as much of the world in an untouched state as we can. John Chisholm <jchis@penrithcity.nsw.gov.au> Bowen Mt, NSW - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 18:39:32 (MST) Obviously, any outdoor enthusiast should say that we should restrict the use of bolts over the illogical decision of revoking the Wilderness Act. However, there are places for bolts and there are areas that should not be designated Wilderness. This is a simple question with a clear answer. But the real issue is not addressed. Many of the other comments state that we should protect our lands, and I agree. From whom we should protect them is a different matter. Loggers, miners, and developers are not the enemies here. These hard-working Americans are only doing making their livings by supporting what we as a society have decided we want. Next time you bash a logger, try not to think about the paper you use daily and the material your house is made of. Years of fire suppression has thickened our forests to an unhealthy level, resulting in major 'crown fires' such as those this past summer in the Western U.S. Yet we still oppose thinning of forests. Secondly, by placing legal bolts on routes that are heavily used already, we stand a greater chance of reducing the impact to routes which are in sensitive areas. For those who haven't read up on ecology in a while, this is known as 'concentrated impact.' Every dirt trail in World is an example of this. To conclude, the Wilderness Act should remain intact, but let's not rush to the conclusion that everything manmade is bad. Let's work together with the loggers and the miners to better the understanding of everyone, not just ourselves. Brandon L. Price <FireScoutII@hotmail.com> Liberty, NC United States - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 18:29:22 (MST) I'd have to say ban the bolts. Like everything else there are too many people involved and with the "too many people" problem comes damage, sometimes irreversible damage, to our natural areas. Seek alternatives whenever possible but our climbing values are just one set of values in a sea of legitimate values. tim simmons <tsimmons@greennet.net> Merrimac, MA - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 18:14:05 (MST) I love to climb. I would give up climbing if it meant the ultimate desimation of our wilderness areas. I also love to hike and camp. I would give this up, also. If the Wilderness Act does protect the wilderness for our childeren to enjoy, then I think it would be better to ban bolts than revoke it. Better still, modify it so bolts aren't considered development! I think David could rest peacefully with that... Bob <glasncad@home.com> Panama City, FL - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 16:25:06 (MST) Ban the bolts. We need to keep what we have looking good. Besides, not having bolts also makes it harder to pick out routes. God forbid we be inventive.... Tyler Smith <guacamoly@hotmail.com> Davenport, IA - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 15:22:51 (MST) I've climbed for about two full years and i like bolts and i think that it should stay. If trad climbers want to trad let em. if sport climbers wanna sport climb then go ahead. But it is fine to have bolts i think. jesse biloff <climber19@juno.com> loveland, colorado - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 15:17:12 (MST) If an unqualifiable choice is required then I say "bolts be banned". Sport climbing is great but our wilderness areas need to be protected and are valuable. The public should be able to utilize public lands/etc but not at the expense of their destruction. I'd rather never climb again and know that these areas are safe for future generations and/or put money into trad gear than lose what little we have left. And that's coming from a sport climber. Max Hernandez <max.hernandez@twtelecom.com> Littleton, Co - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 14:03:24 (MST) Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Wilderness areas need protection from loggers, miners and commercial development. Let's continue to work at a compromise solution to the bolting question. If we can no longer bolt, just think how bold we'll all become - or maybe we'll be creative and find other less invasive protection alternatives. Bob Rittenhouse <rittro@wwc.edu> Walla Walla, WA - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 13:14:18 (MST) Bolting has opened up rock climbing to alot of folks who would have otherwise been scared away by "trad" climbing. Bolt unobtrusivly and all will be well. Bolt everything in the world and we'll continue to have problems. Common sense is the answer. Unfortunately we seem to be running short of that particular commodity. Ken Campbell <ken@bigturdnospamhead.com> Bigfork , Montana - Tuesday, December 05, 2000 at 13:07:22 (MST) I read a book by David Brower and think he is an ankle biter. I used to give unqualified support to the wilderness act but think it has outlived its usefullness. Climbing issues are among many that caused me to change my opinion. Mainly, people should be free to visit public lands. Steve Curtis <steven.curtis@kadena.af.mil> presently Okinawa, california - Sunday, December 03, 2000 at 03:51:51 (MST) i think that some bolts are fine for people to use but it should be minimized as the natural world is the number one priority as an outdoor enthusiast Saka <saka_19@hotmail.com> Calgary, Alberta Canada - Saturday, December 02, 2000 at 19:30:58 (MST) Keep the Wilderness Act. It preserves things which are much more important than our recreation. Besides, a bolting ban can always be overturned, but a paved-over wilderness is gone for good. Kyri <kyrif@usa.net> Sunnyvale, CA - Friday, December 01, 2000 at 18:52:20 (MST) Royal Robbins lasoing trees, or throwing chockstones into cracks; all for pro. These are the stories i grew up on and i still venerate this ethic. Keeping the Wilderness Act takes precednce (although i would love to see them use it to regulate all the "over logging!") over the retention of bolting. I think that these pressures may lead to a reassurtion of this ethic that pits humanity more equally against the complexities of nature. And in the end, if someone places a bolt with a hand drill on lead, and does so responsibly and sparingly, no one's going to much miss the difference. Aaron Swaney <muaddib161@aol.com> Santa Barbara, CA - Friday, December 01, 2000 at 18:25:14 (MST) I would have to go with banning the bolts. I have been climbing for over twenty years and would hate to see access denied, but the wilderness needs to be preserved. Steve Powell <climber1@earthlink.net> Alhambra, California - Monday, November 27, 2000 at 20:48:56 (MST) Ban the bolts. I wouldn't like it but we need the wilderness areas. Michael Kirby <kirby@tcworks.net> Conway, Arkansas - Friday, November 24, 2000 at 06:29:06 (MST) "Safety" or "Accessibility"? I think that we as a community need to come to terms with that chioce. For the most part, "Traditional" routes utilize fixed anchors solely for belays and rappels. Sport routes on the contrary, utilize bolts for accessibility and in recent times, I have observed the abuse of BOLTING in many areas that are accessible to many other folks other than climbers and in turn questiion authenticity of drilling holes into the rock and basically destroying the rock. That is the opinion that I believe is motivating the Government agencis in question to come to the conclusion that they are pending on enforcing. We need to seriously think about their way of thinking and realize that they may not rationalize in the same way that we as climbers do concerning the use of bolts. We must also realize that they are the dictating agencies and if we don't compromise our attitudes towards bolted routes on government land, we may just end up losing all aspects of our freedoms on those lands and the Safety of all fixed anchors will be lost. I don't know about the rest of you all, but I can't afford to leave a rack behind each time that I rap off a Classic multi-pitch route. Let's come together and realize the full spectrum of the cost and the loss of our freedoms if we continue to ignor the concerns of the governing agencies. Rick Poedtke <rockrat@cnetech.com> Hanford, CA - Thursday, November 23, 2000 at 12:48:10 (MST) I enjoy all aspects that climbing offers, trad, sport, bouldering, hanging out. Without a doubt I would give up sport climbing to keep the wilderness act alive. I think that it would be very selfish of climbers, or just peolpe in general to take away something that was fought for for so long. Wilderness areas are frequented by people other than climbers and to revoke the wilderness act just for a select few would be totally unjustified. Once again I would gladly hang up my draws in order to preserve a small part of our nations great wilderness areas. Hey anyone want to go to the Draw?? Kaolin Cummens <Azrockclimber@aol.com> Flagstaff, Arizona - Wednesday, November 22, 2000 at 23:03:14 (MST) Would have to go with keeping the wilderness act. We could still go out, place a few hand drilled bolts and no one would be the wiser but revoking the wilderness act is too radical. Carol Kotchek <cchinker@sunvalley.net> Ketchum, Id - Wednesday, November 22, 2000 at 19:41:43 (MST) Several of the early responses to this month's question have been accidently deleted. We apologize for the inconvenience and invite those users to reply again. Editor <editor@rocklist.com> Phoenix, AZ - Wednesday, November 22, 2000 at 17:08:08 (MST) 
|