Comment from Kitson Glaspell
AnonymousOtherIndividual
Summary: The commenter expresses mixed feelings about the proposed regulation, supporting the recognition of climbing as a wilderness activity and the protection of legacy routes, but opposing the addition of permit requirements for fixed anchors. They argue that the bureaucracy will create safety risks and request a more streamlined, programmatic authorization process for climbing areas.
I see where you are coming from with the regulation on who’s building and replacing these systems imperative to our safety but adding permit requirements in my opinion will cause more danger than before because the genius dirtbags who are the best retro bolters of our time to not wanna deal with the feds.. The climbing community has made leaps and bounds in its safety systems over the years and worrying about poorly bolted anchors will always be a thing but this added layer of beurocracy will not solve that.
I support the recognition that climbing is an appropriate Wilderness activity and that fixed anchors, critical pieces of the climbing safety system, are allowable in Wilderness. I also support provisions to allow climbers to place or replace fixed anchors without authorization in the event of an emergency. I appreciate that the policy protects existing climbing routes that were developed before the PARC Act was passed into law. Legacy Wilderness climbs should remain available in order to preserve America’s rich climbing legacy.
Please improve policies to expedite timely replacement of fixed anchors in order to avoid unnecessary barriers to climber safety. The authorization process for new climbing routes that require fixed anchors should be easier to navigate. Please provide a clear path for programmatic authorization, or preauthorization, at climbing areas that do not necessitate case-by-case special use permits.