I've been a trad climber for many years, and I've often been put off at finding bolts and pitons on a route, especially one I had previously climbed without any fixed gear. I do think it a bit...
Exemplary
I've been a trad climber for many years, and I've often been put off at finding bolts and pitons on a route, especially one I had previously climbed without any fixed gear.
I do think it a bit much to ban slings, rap rings, and pickets. That said, if I had to choose for the pendulum to swing too far one way, it would be on the side of leave no trace. I also question the actual enforcement of descent slings and rap rings.
I also think this can challenge climbers to find descent routes and through climbs, or other creative problem solving that is the heart of climbing. Rappelling down the face is just the easiest and fastest descent, not necessarily the only option.
The article also seems to imply that this would apply to emergency descent which is laughable. I've rescued climbers in the PNW; no one gets issued a littering citation in life or death situations without aggravating conditions.
Also, the avalanche filled couloirs reference is just weird. I'm AIARE 2 certified because avalanche's are an objective hazard in the mountain environment that needs to be mitigated. If a climber lacks the skills to safely ascend and descend, they need to work on skill development. I've descended many such couloirs. I've also climbed many of Fred Becky's routes.
So while I would rather not see slings and rap rings lumped in with pitons and bolts, I'm also weary of unimaginative climbers using easy outs instead of more creative or committed problem solving.
I was thinking that too, really hyperbolic, park rangers are rarely assholes in my experience. National parks in general has always felt to me to be one of the better run areas of federal...
The article also seems to imply that this would apply to emergency descent which is laughable. I've rescued climbers in the PNW; no one gets issued a littering citation in life or death situations without aggravating conditions.
I was thinking that too, really hyperbolic, park rangers are rarely assholes in my experience. National parks in general has always felt to me to be one of the better run areas of federal government. It's not perfect, but in context it's pretty great.
It makes sense that they'd want to default to leave no trace as a matter of policy, and then make exceptions on a case by case basis.
It will be interesting to see how the exceptions play out. Will they look at what other reasonable options exist, and allow minimally invasive protection on routes with no other descent options? I...
It will be interesting to see how the exceptions play out. Will they look at what other reasonable options exist, and allow minimally invasive protection on routes with no other descent options? I hope they take a balanced approach, but am also happy to see effort to protect our wild spaces.
For years I was indoctrinated against the use of pitons and told “Leave no trace.” So I’m not sure how to align with opponents.
NOTE: The deadline for public comment period has now passed. But you can still support wilderness climbing by supporting the Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences (EXPLORE) Act, which is currently in congress and includes language overtly protecting wilderness climbing and fixed anchor use.
For years I was indoctrinated against the use of pitons and told “Leave no trace.” So I’m not sure how to align with opponents.
I'm really on the fence about the EXPLORE act. I like the expansion of recreation, but it feels like a friendly way to deregulate and roll back wilderness protections.
I'm really on the fence about the EXPLORE act. I like the expansion of recreation, but it feels like a friendly way to deregulate and roll back wilderness protections.
I read a bit about the EXPLORE act, it seems to be supported by legitimate organizations and I agree with the broad goals, but I didn't read the fine print. What sort of deregulation does it propose?
I read a bit about the EXPLORE act, it seems to be supported by legitimate organizations and I agree with the broad goals, but I didn't read the fine print. What sort of deregulation does it propose?
I've been a trad climber for many years, and I've often been put off at finding bolts and pitons on a route, especially one I had previously climbed without any fixed gear.
I do think it a bit much to ban slings, rap rings, and pickets. That said, if I had to choose for the pendulum to swing too far one way, it would be on the side of leave no trace. I also question the actual enforcement of descent slings and rap rings.
I also think this can challenge climbers to find descent routes and through climbs, or other creative problem solving that is the heart of climbing. Rappelling down the face is just the easiest and fastest descent, not necessarily the only option.
The article also seems to imply that this would apply to emergency descent which is laughable. I've rescued climbers in the PNW; no one gets issued a littering citation in life or death situations without aggravating conditions.
Also, the avalanche filled couloirs reference is just weird. I'm AIARE 2 certified because avalanche's are an objective hazard in the mountain environment that needs to be mitigated. If a climber lacks the skills to safely ascend and descend, they need to work on skill development. I've descended many such couloirs. I've also climbed many of Fred Becky's routes.
So while I would rather not see slings and rap rings lumped in with pitons and bolts, I'm also weary of unimaginative climbers using easy outs instead of more creative or committed problem solving.
I was thinking that too, really hyperbolic, park rangers are rarely assholes in my experience. National parks in general has always felt to me to be one of the better run areas of federal government. It's not perfect, but in context it's pretty great.
It makes sense that they'd want to default to leave no trace as a matter of policy, and then make exceptions on a case by case basis.
It will be interesting to see how the exceptions play out. Will they look at what other reasonable options exist, and allow minimally invasive protection on routes with no other descent options? I hope they take a balanced approach, but am also happy to see effort to protect our wild spaces.
For years I was indoctrinated against the use of pitons and told “Leave no trace.” So I’m not sure how to align with opponents.
I'm really on the fence about the EXPLORE act. I like the expansion of recreation, but it feels like a friendly way to deregulate and roll back wilderness protections.
I read a bit about the EXPLORE act, it seems to be supported by legitimate organizations and I agree with the broad goals, but I didn't read the fine print. What sort of deregulation does it propose?