Crowds and bolts both decrease the adventure. They're connected too because bolts help draw the crowds, and the crowds demand more bolts.

Guidebook authors are actually the primary vehicle for decreasing adventure. Its pretty much their job. If If Kelsey, Steck and Roper hadn't done theirs for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the people who DID climb Wolfs Head would be guaranteed their full quota of adventure.
DMT

Guidebook authors are actually the primary vehicle for decreasing adventure. Its pretty much their job. If If Kelsey, Steck and Roper hadn't done theirs for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the people who DID climb Wolfs Head would be guaranteed their full quota of adventure.

In certain times and places, we've had the idea "Let's not tell anyone!" to preserve adventure from overcrowding and whatnot. That worked pretty well for awhile. But then years later, some new folks would come along, re-climb our routes, give them a new name and claim the FA for whatever guidebooks might follow. I know it's petty, but sometimes that drove me nuts. So by this roundabout route I came to realize that guidebooks, if done well, can be keepers of climbing history. What's not written down tends to fade away, and then get overwritten by someone who has it all wrong.

The rap routes on the Diamond and Petit are relatively new, no? At least that's true for the Diamond, and I guess I don't follow how the Petit has a "rap line" anyway since there's only, what, one rap. At any rate, all the tat on those descents is probably older than the bolted rap routes.

As for Wolf's Head, its been a while but I don't recall a true bolted rap line and the lack of one is what initiated this inane conversation. In my opinion, if you put in a bolted rap line there you won't see any proliferation of tat, as long as the start of the descent is obvious and unchanged. I also highly doubt that the route has such a reputation for a difficult descent that its keeping the hordes away.

I believe, although I could be mistaken, that his reference to a slippery slope pertained more to the possibility that seeing bolted anchors might eventually lead some to think that maybe a few protection bolts might not be a bad idea, either. After all, what is the difference in a bolted anchor and a bolt here and there for protection - a sad but true mindset of some, I'm afraid.

Responsible bolting, outside of places like the Front Range and Eldorado Canyon, where such practices are mandated, is susceptible to the interpretation of the person wielding the drill. Although I would like to think that most wilderness climbers know better, the fact is that an ever-increasing number of new members to the activity are being reared on the premise that bolts are the perfect solution to everything - especially dealing with the so-called impurities of climbing (i.e. rapping, etc.).

I believe that certain things should simply be left as they are. If it ain't broke, why fix it? So there are slings left behind. They are an eyesore to me too, but I can always cut them if I don't like looking at them.

Let's just say that the world passes a moratorium on wilderness bolting. That won't change the fact that we don't like looking at tattered slings, although being left without the option of permanent bolts might inspire us to think outside the box to come up with a better (retrievable) solution.

I vote for no bolted anchors on existing wilderness routes that have been successfully done without them.

Notice the part about "left in it's natural condition." In a wilderness we should strive to keep it a wilderness. By building roads, houses, bathrooms, or placing bolts we are altering the wilderness permanently, and thus it ceases to exist as a wilderness.

So this also eliminates cairns, trails, improvised food hanging poles, and rock shelters for providing wind shelter to your camp. All of which can be found in copious amounts in the Cirque. So what makes these human improvements kosher while a few hand-drilled bolts are not?

I think we're starting to chase our tail here a bit but there were some interesting points made in this thread.

Guidebook authors are actually the primary vehicle for decreasing adventure. Its pretty much their job. If If Kelsey, Steck and Roper hadn't done theirs for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the people who DID climb Wolfs Head would be guaranteed their full quota of adventure.

Ah, Wilderness. We often think of wilderness as a place for people, as areas to renew and refresh the soul. However, wilderness also protects watersheds, serves as critical habitat for threatened and endangered wildlife, improves air quality, and maintains biological diversity. The United States Congress established the Wilderness Act in 1964 to "secure for the American People of present and future generations the benefit of an enduring resource of Wilderness." While we may each have our own definition, Congress defines Wilderness as areas where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by people; where people visit, but do not remain.

Actually, no. The Diamond rap route has been around for 10 years or so. It's hard to follow, folks miss it all the time, and there's still tat everywhere. Some dedicated folks clean up the tat from time to time but it always comes back.

Used to be, when you climbed the Petite, you did one rap off the backside, then scrambled up a chimney to the Gash. In the late 90s someone installed a series of ~6 double rope bolted raps all the way down the south face, straight back to your packs. I've done the route using both methods for descent; I found the rap route very hard to follow. We lost it, and just used the fixed slings already in place everywhere to finish the job. Somehow I have the feeling that those slings are still there, and plenty of new stuff too.



Maybe I wasn't clear. There is the standard descent line, the West (?) Face, which has been used for decades for no problem without bolts. This descent is complicated and not obvious, there is tat all over it, and regardless of whether or not bolts are placed, I imagine there always will be (because many folks will miss the bolts). The (alleged) "bolted rap line" that I referred to is, apparently, a recent development and takes the opposite side of the mountain.

so theoretically if you used a hand-drill the act of bolting in wilderness is allowed, however actually installing a bolt and leaving it, at least to my reading of the legislation, seems to be inconsistent with the law and therefore illegal. but i could be wrong, i ain't no lawyer.

If you don't like seeing the, pick it up and pack it out. Hell you could even leave a camoflauged sling. Which does not permanently alter the wilderness.

I understand the resistance to a lot of hardware in places like the Winds. There's a certain irony in the way we use the word wilderness. To me, a true wilderness is something more remote like the Brooks Range or the McKenzie mountains in the Yukon, and in a setting like that you can do things on a mountain that just about noone will ever see. In a pseudo-wilderness like the Winds, which are stacked with trails, pack animals, climbers, hikers, fishermen, and 6-year olds, the impacts of fixed anchors seem in a way a bigger deal. Even in "wilderness" parts of the desert in Utah, you can do things that wouldn't pass muster in the Winds.

So I guess I'm somewhat ignorant, but what exactly are the specs of the USFS regulations pertaining to fixed anchors in designated wilderness areas? No establishment of new fixed anchors? Are there supposed to be no fixed anchors, period? Or am I imagining things and the only regulation is no power drills? I've navigated the Access Fund's website and wasn't able to determine anything.

Guidebook authors are actually the primary vehicle for decreasing adventure. Its pretty much their job. If If Kelsey, Steck and Roper hadn't done theirs for example, we wouldn't be having this discussion and the people who DID climb Wolfs Head would be guaranteed their full quota of adventure.

DMT

Bolting bans or fixed anchor bans in "Wilderness" areas, or other areas for that matter, are COMPLETE s--- as long as there are established trails.

Hypocricy.

From the Access Fund site:

"Specifically, the Forest Service decision prohibits "use of permanent fixed anchors" for climbing in wilderness. A "fixed anchor" is any kind of climbing device which is left in place by climbers to descend from technical summits (where no walk-down is possible) and to provide a margin of safety when moving over particularly dangerous or difficult terrain on the ascent."

This applies to slings or bolts equally... thereby negating about 99% of the arguments presented in this thread. If you rap off fixed slings on forest service designated wilderness land, you are breaking the law. I bet 100% of the experienced wilderness climbers in this very thread have broken that law at least once since implemented and I'd dare say they will continue to break it for as long as they climb in the wilderness and rappel from summits.

So you can take the 'but the rules stipulate' argument elsewhere, it doesn't fly with the climbers who actually climb in these environments.

For reference:

http://www.accessfund.org/advo/wild.php

The rule either demonstrates a profound and fundamental lack of understanding of what climbers do, or it is an outright attack to eliminate climbing from wilderness areas completely. Either way, the rule is not compatible with how we practice our sport.

DMT

Dingus, that page you found is about the rule enacted in 1998. I was under the impression that this rule is no longer in effect. Am I wrong? Have I been cheerfully breaking the law ever since?

I could be wrong as no easy summaries are to be found