Environmental Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

The climber was nearing the top of a difficult rock-climbing route on one of the polished granite domes above Tuolumne Meadows in the high country of Yosemite. These routes are known for their long run-outs--unprotected sections where the lead climber is in danger of a long fall. The climber was 50 feet out from her last “protection,” a three-eighths-inch-wide expansion bolt and a two-inch-long bolt hanger placed in the crackless face, to which her climbing rope was secured through a snaplink called a carabiner. A 100-foot fall, which climbers call a “screamer,” was likely if she didn’t find the next bolt.

Suddenly, like a golden nugget nestled in a stream bed, she spotted the bolt and carefully climbed over and clipped her rope into it. Breathing a huge sigh of relief, she thanked the climber who years before took the time to drill the hole for that bolt in the seamless face.

A dark cloud has suddenly developed over the many difficult rock climbing routes put up in recent years in this country, at least those located on land administered by the U.S. Forest Service. Using his discretionary review powers to circumvent the public rule-making process, Forest Service Chief Michael Dombeck in June suddenly banned the use of all bolts and other fixed anchors in Forest Service wilderness areas throughout the country, currently in place or to be affixed in the future. He based this decision on a tortured interpretation of the Wilderness Act that fixed anchors are installations and thus prohibited by the act.

A Forest Service spokesman justified this action with the misguided comment that other wilderness “installations” such as bridges along trails will remain legal because they exist for strictly safety and administrative reasons, but “you don’t need all these anchors bolted up rocks for safety.”

This unwarranted and thoughtless action by the Forest Service could be emulated by the administrators of many of the other major rock climbing areas in the United States, such as the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management. These actions would effectively doom difficult rock climbing on most public lands in this country, and it will not be regarded in a kindly fashion by many rock climbers who regard their participation in this activity not as a sport, but as an all-consuming passion, a way of life.

If bolts are chopped by the Forest Service from established routes and climbers are injured or killed because they relied on the presence of those bolts in published route descriptions of such climbs, the Forest Service would be liable for such actions.

Bolts are little pieces of equipment that are usually color coded to blend into the rock on which they are placed. The average nonclimbing visitor to a public land where rock climbing is popular cannot usually even see these tiny safety devices high on the rock walls; even climbers often have trouble finding them. At the same time, these anchors provide trail markers on these difficult “vertical trails,” just as the trails and signs do on more horizontal ground for less adventurous visitors to such public lands.

The Forest Service for years has been turning wilderness areas into commercial ski areas, essentially giving away public lands to private developers. It has also thoughtlessly allowed environmentally destructive mining operations to be conducted unchecked on Forest Service lands, It is far too late for the Forest Service to transform itself into an activist environmental protection organization.

In addition, almost all responsible environmental organizations--the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society and the National Parks and Conservation Assn.--oppose the Forest Service’s position banning fixed anchors. These groups have worked with climbing organizations to develop policies to regulate the use of fixed anchors and other climbing activities in wilderness areas, to ensure that the wilderness environment is preserved.

The position taken by the Forest Service banning fixed anchors on the lands they administer, without even holding a public hearing regarding this action prior to imposing it, is unjustified, particularly in view of the pitiful environmental record of the Forest Service in protecting the public lands entrusted to it.