National Policy Issues
The best, most famous climbing in the United States occurs on public lands administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management, as well as many state and local agencies. How land managers administer these areas directly affects the climbing experience. There has been a growing concern in recent years about inappropriate and cumulative impacts on public lands. As a result, several key issues have emerged that may profoundly impact the climbing experience now and in the future. We explore each and explain how the AAC is trying to resolve each issue.
Fixed Anchors in Wilderness
Though climbers were some of the most vocal advocates in the Wilderness movement, for more than a decade use of fixed climbing anchors in designated Wilderness has been contested by some conservation groups. At one point in 1998, bolts, fixed pitons and slings were banned from all Forest Service-administered wilderness areas. However, effective advocacy by the AAC and other climbing and conservation groups overturned the ban. We continue to work with the federal agencies to craft policies and rules that will allow for the managed use of fixed anchors in wilderness, protecting climbing opportunities, climber safety and protection of the wilderness resource.
Fixed Anchors in Wilderness Chronology (January 2004). A thorough review of the important dates and actions regarding the Forest Service’s attempt to ban fixed anchors from wilderness areas they administer, as well as efforts with all federal agencies to clearly articulate that fixed anchors are legal wilderness tools.
Historical Use of Fixed Anchors (May 2001). A succinct history of how pitons, bolts and slings came into use by climbers, as well as the ethical perspectives of each citing contemporary sources.
Congressional Intent Regarding Wilderness Climbing (May 2001). Current management actions often overlook the long historical link between technical climbers and the development of wilderness thought. Read about what Congress reasonably knew about climbing and the use of fixed anchors as they passed the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Wilderness “Installation” Defined (May 2001). The Forest Service’s 1998 fixed anchor ban was based on fixed anchors being “installations” as defined by Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act. However, there are many interpretations of the term and other ways of looking at the section’s prohibitions.
AAC Policy Statement on Fixed Anchors in Wilderness (November 1999).
Opinion Article: “Don’t Know Much About History: How Lack of Historical Emphasis Doomed the Fixed Anchor Negotiated Rulemaking” (January 2004). Originally written for the Vermont Journal of Environmental Law as part of a series of essays by Negotiated Rulemaking participants, this lengthy essay by AAC Deputy Director Lloyd Athearn and former policy intern Aaron Hill combines many of these concepts into one document that states the case for wilderness fixed anchor use, as well as explains why the negotiated rulemaking effort failed.
Social Capacity Management/Wilderness Solitude
Public land managers frequently say that recreationalists are “loving the lands to death.” Beyond managing only based on physical impacts to the wilderness resource, managers increasingly are looking to “human encounters” and other social capacity standards to ensure that wilderness “solitude” is maintained. Whether the Wilderness Act mandates providing solitude in all wilderness areas at all times and how wilderness solitude is defined will have significant repercussions on access to many wilderness and park areas. The AAC has been working to help develop appropriate social standards for alpine terrain and the climbing experience.
Mount Hood Wilderness Plan Overview: 1998-2001 (January 2004). A revision to the Mount Hood (Oregon) Wilderness Plan in 1998 served as a national test case regarding managing a wilderness area primarily by human encounters. The issue remains unresolved today, though the discussion has helped define to what degree wilderness should be regulated by social factors. Mount Hood resources:
- AAC Response to 1999 Draft Environmental Assessment (March 1999)
- Opinion Article: “Solitary Confinement: The regulations that would lock up Mount Hood are misguided” [Article by Deputy Director Lloyd Athearn originally published in Climbing #186.]
- AAC Response to 2000 Revised Environmental Assessment (August 2000)
- AAC Comments in Support of Mt. Hood National Forrest (February 2001)
Rocky Mountain National Park Backcountry/Wilderness Management Plan (January 2004). In contrast to the “management by spreadsheet” approach to solitude initially used at Mount Hood, Rocky Mountain National Park took a different approach to manage solitude among the more than 3 million annual visitors to this national park located near Estes Park, Colorado, more than 90 percent of which is managed as wilderness.
Denali Mountaineering Studies (January 2004). The Draft Backcountry Management Plan at Denali acknowledged that human encounters might not be the most appropriate way to regulate climbers and those in the alpine zones. As a result, the Draft BMP created “Mountaineering Study Areas” that encompass the major climbing locations, and studies will be conducted in 2004 to come up with better management approaches for these areas. The results of these studies could influence how climbing and alpine zones are managed elsewhere in the mountainous U.S. Denali resources.
- Denali Study Area
- AAC Response to Scoping Phase Document (2001).
- AAC Reponse to Draft Backountry Management Plan (2003)
Mountain Rescues/Rescue Cost Recovery
The AAC is a leading voice nationally on the subject of mountaineering rescues and charging climbers for rescues. Much of the debate has focused on Denali National Park and Preserve, where climbing and mountain rescues are high-profile activities, though several states also have addressed the issue. The following documents provide information about climbing accidents, mountain rescues, and the reason why charging for rescues is a poor one.
State of Oregon Task Force Report on Search and Rescue (April 2006) Several highly publized rescues on Mount Hood led to a review of state laws, administrative rules, related policies, and recommendations for changes necessary to ensure proper coordination and communication during search and rescue operations. Page 10 has the info on locator units and page 14 includes Oregon Emergency Management’s data on who is getting rescued.
Climbing Rescues in America: Reality Does Not Support High-Risk, High-Cost Perception (May 2005) With this groundbreaking report, The American Alpine Club clarifies some the common misperceptions regarding mountain rescues, climbing risks, and the costs of rescue services.
Rescue Cost Recovery Paper (January 2004). An overview of mountain rescue in the U.S., with an emphasis on Mount McKinley, written by AAC Executive Director Charley Shimanski, who also serves as the education director of the Mountain Rescue Association.
AAC Comments on Denali Rescue Cost Recovery Study (March 2001). The AAC’s recommendations to the National Park Service as they responded to a Congressionally mandated study of rescue costs in Denali National Park and Preserve.
Final NPS Denali Rescue Cost Recovery Study (August 2001). The final report sent to Congress in response to legislation passed in 1999.
Opinion Article: “Jokers on the Mountain: When Politics and Mountain Rescues Collide” (September 1996). An article about the Oregon Legislature’s efforts in 1995 to hold climbers financially responsible for mountain rescue costs. Written by AAC Deputy Director Lloyd Athearn, it originally was published in Climbing #163, September 1996.
Climbing Fees and Regulations
Climbing-specific fees have been imposed primarily on heavily glaciated peaks in Alaska and the Cascade Range. Managing climbers on the mountain—particularly human waste disposal—is a major focus of most climbing fee programs.
Mount McKinley/Mount Foraker The fee for climbing Mounts McKinley and Foraker was established in 1995 and remains $150 per person. This is an administrative cost recovery fee, and is not related to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program. The fee covers staffing needed for registration, producing educational materials, managing human waste and trash on the mountain, and providing an on-mountain management presence. Costs of actual rescues are funded separately within the Department of Interior’s budget. In addition to the fee, climbers must register more than 60 days in advance so that the Park can inform climbers about the unique high-altitude Arctic environment experienced on these two peaks. The AAC successfully convinced the Park Service to waive the advance reservation requirement for climbers who already have climbed on either peak. Starting with the 2002 climbing season, individuals registered and climbed on either peak since 1995 need only register seven days in advance.
Mount Rainier imposed a $15 per attempt/$25 per year climbing fee in 1995, and like the McKinley/Foraker fee, it is an administrative cost recovery fee. The fee primarily pays for climbing rangers on the mountain, maintenance of the solar toilets and blue bag human waste program, as well as climber safety education efforts. The fee was increased in 2003 to $25 person, but the fee now provides for unlimited attempt within a year. The AAC’s comments supported some aspects of the fee program, objected to the fact that climbers are charged for permit issuance services that are provided free to other backcountry visitors, and could only justify a $20 fee level based on increased climber numbers and inflation.
Mount St. Helens
Mount Adams
Protection of Alpine Zones
Denali Human Waste and Trash
Mount Rainier Human Waste Management [photos: solar toilet, toilet]
Leave No Trace Practices in Alpine Zones