US NPS Draft Policy: Bolting requires prior authorization

[squamish climber]

The National Park Service has released an updated draft on climbing regulations in National Parks including Yosemite, Zion, Black Canyon, and Rocky Mountain.

A highlight of the new policy requires prior authorization be given for the placement of new fixed anchors. The replacement or removal of old fixed anchors may also require park approval. This proposed policy would be managed by issuing permits to climbers wishing to place bolts.

The proposal would also prohibit removing vegetation on or at the base of climbing routes.

The Squamish Climbing community is grappling with these same issues. Do you think it will come to this? What can be done to avoid this kind of requlation on the Chief?

For a look at the draft paper go here: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cf ... ntID=38242

And here is the press release by the Access Fund http://www.accessfund.org/site/apps/nln ... ct=9006569

[Aaron]

The National Park Service has released an updated draft on climbing regulations in National Parks including Yosemite, Zion, Black Canyon, and Rocky Mountain.

A highlight of the new policy requires prior authorization be given for the placement of new fixed anchors. The replacement or removal of old fixed anchors may also require park approval. This proposed policy would be managed by issuing permits to climbers wishing to place bolts.

The proposal would also prohibit removing vegetation on or at the base of climbing routes.

The Squamish Climbing community is grappling with these same issues. Do you think it will come to this? What can be done to avoid this kind of requlation on the Chief?

For a look at the draft paper go here: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cf ... ntID=38242

And here is the press release by the Access Fund http://www.accessfund.org/site/apps/nln ... ct=9006569

The US park service is managed by environmental zelots. BC parks is not. I can speak to this reality based on my 16 years working in BC Parks as a Naturalist and as a Park Ranger. BC Parks primary mandate is "Protect representative and special natural places within the Province's Protected Areas System for world class conservation, outdoor recreation, education and scientific study" Now if you consider that hunting is a form of outdoor recreation that is protected and encouraged within BC Parks, I can't imagine that managing the placement of expansion bolts would be. If I can carry my rifle into a park, step 400m off the center line of a highway, shoot and kill a limited entry moose, leave a 200lbs gut pile, all within the boundarys of most BC Parks, then I can't imagine that bolt placement are going to be on the agenda of any Park Supervisor, especially one who's trusted in protecting a park that was created to protect activities such as climbing.

Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about Management decisions in the US NPS and people believing if they do something there, then it's only a matter of time before they do the same here. I believe that this kind of fear based thinking is amongst the greatest threats to climbing in Squamish. When people follow this vain of thinking, it has the potential for individuals or groups to then demand limitations on their climbing, believing falsely that their choosing the lesser of two evils, and that if left to the managers of decide their derisions would be farther reaching then their preemptive compromise.

Aaron Kristiansen

[scrubber]

Thanks for your insider point of view on this Aaron. It's often a relief to hear what's really going on within Canadian parks, compared to what we think may happen just because it's happening in the States.

Kris

[Optimally-Primed]

I agree with Aaron that the state of affairs in the US Parks bare little to no resemblance of the state of affairs in BC. I think that the news from the US is sad for the US climbers but, beyond a little empathy, has no implications for BC Parks.