Comment from Alaga, Randy
Randy AlagaSupportIndividual
Summary: The commenter, a long-time outdoor enthusiast and activist, supports the climbing community's need for fixed anchor upgrades and new route development. They argue that prohibiting or severely restricting fixed anchors would alienate a large group of conservation-minded advocates and that the impact of anchors is minimal compared to other human impacts like roads.
I have been accessing forests and mountains for nearly 50 years. My experiences in these places have also driven my activism and political stances to conserve and protect these places. The climber groups represent a large population that actively defends and protects these out door areas. Climbers rely heavily on fixed anchors to safely access many places. Although regulation is often necessary, prohibition would be counterproductive. First, replacement of aging anchors is of the utmost importance because they will be relied on and may be potentially deadly. Secondly, encouraging climber access means increasing support and defense of those natural areas. Fixed anchors are crucial for many climbs and areas. Any prohibiting or severe restrictions would mean alienating large populations who would otherwise be defenders and advocates for conservation. Please be moderate in your regulating. Having spent countless days looking for fixed anchors, I can safely say that they are few and far between. Yes, there are many people who believe them to be high impact, but they pale in comparison to roads and other forms of human impact. Please support the climbing community and their need for fixed anchor upgrades and new route development. The climber community will thank you and support your defense and conservation of our natural world. Severely limit or prohibit the use of fixed anchors and you will alienate this group and turn them into an adversary rather than an ally.