Advocacy

All About Bolts: From Federal Policy, to a Day of Local Rebolting with Ryan Kuehn

This episode is all about bolts. From the nitty gritty of yanking a bad bolt out of the rock at your local sport crag, to the big-picture policies that govern the practice of bolting, rebolting and other fixed anchors on America’s federal public lands.

For the main part of this episode, we talk about the under-appreciated art of bolt replacement with Ryan Kuehn, one of the leads for the Anchor Replacement Program at the Boulder Climbing Community (BCC), an integral local climbing org for the Front Range of Colorado.

We also start the episode with insights from the AAC’s Director of Government Affairs, Byron Harvison, who shares an update on the proposed implementation guidance of the EXPLORE ACT and PARC Act—the historic laws that preserved fixed anchors as appropriate in Wilderness Areas. Bryon explains how the proposed implementation policy, just released and open to public comment, will impact how climbers and LCO’s will place and maintain bolts and other fixed anchors on federal public lands moving forward.

Dive in to get the full picture: from federal policy to a day of local rebolting.

[Correction: We would like to offer clarification on the statement at 15:29 which states that a MRA will be utilized by the BLM for routes which fail the casual use standard.  To be clear, the MRA is to be used when the BLM proposes to prohibit climbing in an area.  The proposed guidance states that a yet-to-be-determined process will be utilized to evaluate those routes that exceed the draft casual use standard.]


Safer Than Socks in Your Hat

George Hurley and Layton Kor on the Titan, 1962. Photo by Huntley Ingalls.

A History of Climbing Helmets and an Updated UIAA Standard

By AAC UIAA Representative Stephen Gladieux, with research support from Denis Pivot, Lionel Kiener, and Alain Maurice

Translations of Chevalier and Bonatti by Stephen Gladieux

Originally Published in Guidebook XVII


Less than a thousand feet from the summit, on the north face of the Eiger, Gaston Rébuffat hooked a finger into a piton, left behind from a previous ascent. The night before, as they bivvied, Rébuffat was surprised to find himself sleepless, with a sense of bad omens. “The stars seemed so near that you could touch them, and the Milky Way shone with sinister brightness,” he wrote in his book Starlight and Storm.

On that July day in 1952, their surroundings did prove sinister. Stuck behind several slower parties and faced with warming temperatures, Rébuffat’s team had to inch their way across the tedious traverses that guarded the summit, often taking alternate routes in order to avoid bottlenecks.

As luck would have it, Rébuffat hooked that piton at the exact moment a thunderous crack boomed from above. A massive rock came tumbling down, bursting and splitting into pieces that struck Rébuffat on the head. “But the finger hooked through the piton still held. It was very painful, and felt as if it had been sawn through.... A little blood fell from my cap and reddened the snow-flecked rock.”

Yet, with his head aching and the motivation drained out of him, Rébuffat carried on. Rumor has it that Rébuffat had stuffed his hat with socks, as was the custom at the time when climbing in areas with rockfall danger, and some credit this habit for saving his life. Well, that and the piton.

Without the padding of his rudimentary “helmet,” Rébuffat might not have become the first man to climb all six of the great north faces of the Alps.

Since then, it’s fair to say climbing helmets have undergone an evolution.


Helmets: A History

The history of head protection in climbing starts earlier than Gaston Rébuffat’s injury on the Eiger. There was a parallel evolution, but staggered, between those climbing in the mountains and those exploring underground in caves.

In 1936, the trailblazing French caver Pierre Chevalier reported, “Helmets are beginning to be considered essential in sport caving.” However, during this period, and until around 1950, climbers aboveground were still wearing wool berets as the standard headwear. In 1948, Chevalier’s Escalades Souterraines (Subterranean Climbers) was published. It was one of the seminal works in early caving.

In the early 1950s felt hats became the norm. When there was risk of rockfall, they would occasionally be stuffed with socks or newspaper. This is where Rébuffat’s story takes the stage.

Four years later, in 1956, the ninth edition of Accidents in North American Mountaineering (now Accidents in North American Climbing) already showed an increasing preference for protective headgear. In comments preceding the accident reports, the editors wrote: “Another point that should be re-emphasized is the desirability of wearing a plastic helmet to protect the head from falling rock in areas where this danger is present. This has become a standard practice for some rock climbers in the Yosemite area.”

As helmets for other sports evolved, so too did climbing helmets. In 1954, Amisano Gino Valenza (AGV) produced the first fiberglass motorcycle helmet. It was used by many climbers until climbing-specific models became available.

Walter Bonatti knew helmets were critical. Describing his last ascent of the north face of the Matterhorn, done solo in winter, he wrote:

Again once more, I look to lighten my pack to move more rapidly. I toss food, two étriers, some pitons. I am tempted to get rid of my helmet as well, the glorious plastic helmet that, for four years, accompanied me on the most difficult enterprises. But after an instant of hesitation, I stay my hand and hold the helmet to my chest.

I caress its bumps as if they were wounds: each one of them corresponding to a rock, fallen off Mont Blanc, the Andes, so many other mountains. I placed it back in my pack.

It’s clear Bonatti recognized how many times the helmet had prevented injury. Despite the weight of early helmets, anyone who had their life saved by one would appreciate their value.

The new, lighter fiberglass motorcycle helmet and its growing use by serious climbers spurred the creation of helmets designed for climbers. Sporthaus Schuster was one of the earliest to come out with a model, released in 1960.

Helmets still weren’t used in a widespread way, however. They only had traction in select locations and circles of climbers. In 1966, Joe Brown developed a fiberglass helmet specifically for climbing. He only produced 50 or so of these before contracting with Mo Anthoine to make them. The Joe Brown helmet became popular with English-speaking climbers (and cavers) and was used extensively for decades.

In 1980, the first climbing helmet standard was created: UIAA 106. This was later used to create the European standard EN12492 in 2000, which made it a legal requirement for helmets sold in Europe.

With two milestones, 1993 was a big year for helmets. C.A.M.P. launched its LW 260 helmet. It was the first shell-and-foam-style helmet and weighed only 260 grams. That same year, Petzl started selling the once-ubiquitous Ecrin Roc. This powerhouse of a helmet, which most climbers have seen or worn, was the first with easy on-head adjustability. This allowed it to be loaned, rented, or borrowed easily. Many more climbers were able to try them or even swap them on climbs.

Helmets have continued to evolve alongside climbing. With helmets like the LW 260 and Petzl’s Meteor, which came out in 1997, the excuse that a helmet was too heavy for moving fast and light was seriously challenged. Helmets were becoming more and more comfortable.

In the earliest days of climbing, rockfall was considered the primary reason to wear a helmet. Both Gaston Rébuffat and Walter Bonatti prepared for rockfall hazards—and they both likely survived because of it. So, why did the standard for helmets need to change in 2025?

Ultimately, our climbing has changed, and so has the technology available to design helmets.

In an accident from 2022, ANAC editors reported on a leader fall at Smith Rock, where the climber got their leg snagged around the rope, flipped upside down, and smacked their head. The climber was not wearing a helmet. The analysis included the takeaway that “wearing a helmet would have prevented the skull fractures and brain bleed.”

Accidents like this certainly could have happened in the 1950s, but as we began to climb steeper routes, free, at ever higher grades, significant lead falls became more frequent. A fall on steep rock at Smith Rock is not going to result in a broken ankle from hitting a ledge as much as it might result in an inverted climber hitting the side of their head on the wall.

In 2023, when a climber was lowered off the end of his rope, having tied no stopper knot and misjudged the length of the climb, the climber suffered a serious head injury. Witnesses wrote to ANAC: “While we didn’t see the fall, we understand that he fell feet-first onto a flake near the bottom. He landed, tilted backward, and impacted the back left side of his head, crushing his helmet and sustaining a horrible head injury. The total fall was about 35 feet.” Though the climber was wearing a helmet at the time of the accident, it was not certified with any sort of rim impact. The crushed helmet shows that the climber was better off than had they not been wearing one, but it raises questions about helmet designs that were never forced to consider rim or side impacts.

The injury described above is one that doesn’t require a steep, hard climb. Rappel accidents are unfortunately common. Both of these accidents highlight that when we design helmets, we should care not just about protecting from rockfall, which is typically from directly above or a slight off-angle—rim impact is important too.

Climbing has changed over the decades. Routes are steeper in both rock and ice. Climbing and skiing have blended more and more. Ski mountaineering is becoming nearly mainstream. We must be more concerned with protecting ourselves from rim impact injuries, be it from flipping on a steep climb or falling while skiing—or something else unexpected.

A helmet can prevent injury in many cases or reduce the severity of injury. Modern helmets are not built with a nearly indestructible shell like early fiberglass helmets. Rather, they are designed to crush during impact—that is how they absorb some of the impact forces and spread the remaining force out, therefore making the peak force lower.

Berets stuffed with newspaper/socks.

First fiberglass motorcycle helmet.

1936: Pierre Chevalier reports that helmets begin to be used in sport caving.

1940s: Bérets used by French Alpinists.

1950s:

  • Amisano Gino Valenza (AGV) makes the first fiberglass motorcycle helmet.

  • French climbers favor berets stuffed with socks or newspaper

Pre-1960: Helmets are rarely used in climbing (outside of caves).

Joe Brown’s climbing helmet.

1966: Joe Brown produces a fiberglass climbing helmet that weighs 650 grams.

1980: The first UIAA 106 Helmet standard is published.

1993: Petzl releases its Ecrin Roc helmet. C.A.M.P. comes out with the shell-and-foam LW 260, at 260 grams.

1997: Petzl goes even lighter with the Meteor.

First UIAA 106 Helmet standard.

2000: The EN 12492 standard is published using UIAA 106.

2018: Petzl shares its PCSR-001 ski touring helmet testing standard with other manufacturers.

2025: UIAA 106 is updated with 10° rim impact.

2026: The UIAA will establish a ski mountaineering helmet standard.

 

Petzl Ecrin Roc helmet.

C.A.M.P. shell-and-foam.

Petzl meteor.


Modern Helmet Standards

The UIAA 106 helmet standard has now been updated since its first version in 1980. It consists of multiple requirements based on the variety of ways in which a helmet needs to protect a climber. Helmets are conditioned at different temperatures and humidities before testing—for example, they’re artificially aged with UV radiation to simulate degradation over time—all to ensure they work in the environments where we climb. The real soul of the standard can be boiled down to a few key ideas: A helmet has to prevent a sharp rock from penetrating, it has to absorb impact forces, and it has to stay on if it gets pulled or pushed up or off your head.

As more accidents like the ones described above occur, due to the increased prevalence of that kind of impact, it is the middle requirement that we need to look at in depth. What does impact absorption mean? How do we control it?

One of the most common serious closed head injuries happens as a result of a sudden impact to the head. In a coup-contrecoup injury, the head is typically moving very quickly and then is stopped by an immobile object. The brain sloshes forward and hits the inside of the skull, then rebounds and hits the other side, getting damaged in both cases. With this and other types of traumatic brain injury (TBI), the goal is to slow the acceleration (or deceleration) of the head. We do that by limiting the forces that get transmitted to the head when it is impacted.

The UIAA helmet standard allows a maximum of 8 kN of force to be transmitted to your head. Essentially, when a bigger impact (sudden) force hits the helmet, it needs to slow down that transmission to your head.

The UIAA standard limits this to 8 kN, whereas the EN standard only limits it to 10 kN—so a UIAA-certified helmet is much safer than one only certified to EN 12492.

The UIAA Safety Commission took the lead on a revised helmet standard because of the large amount of research and testing involved. We could be more nimble and get an update published much more quickly. And of course, the sooner a standard is published, the sooner the wheels can get turning on implementing it, as there is a lag time between a new or updated standard and when manufacturers are able to change designs or update testing, and finally get a new product on the market.

From 2022 to 2025, the UIAA conducted a large helmet study with nine labs and numerous manufacturers. One of the most difficult issues was standardizing the impact testing in a way that consistently worked, given the different testing apparatus at different labs and manufacturers. Also, helmets have ventilation holes in different places. Any ventilation hole means you might get unlucky with a sharp rock, but the test shouldn’t favor one ventilation hole pattern over another arbitrarily; though, if a ventilation pattern is truly better, the tests should show that. These are the shared challenges for manufacturers and the UIAA Safety Commission.

Several years of work resulted in an updated helmet standard that includes testing for impact absorption 10° above the helmet’s rim on the front, back, and sides. Helmets will be coming onto the market in 2026 that will be tested to this new standard.

Wearing a helmet is a deeply personal safety decision. Bonatti’s indecision was ultimately swayed by memories of the times his helmet saved his life. But a helmet doesn’t last forever; they break down with time, UV exposure, and small impacts, even if there is no major event. Check the manufacturer’s recommended lifespan and inspect your helmet for damage. It can be worthwhile to upgrade to a new one even if your current helmet isn’t quite to the end of its recommended life.

Now, almost 74 years after socks in his hat likely saved Rébuffat’s life, we can have confidence that a new helmet can do the same for an accident that impacts the rim.


Sign Up for AAC Emails


Guidebook XV—Policy Spotlight

A Little Rust is All It Takes

By Stephen Gladieux, AAC delegate to the UIAA Safety Commision

Consider the following true story:

It’s the mid-2000s and two friends are on a long, multi-pitch sport climb. They’re excited—it is the climbing vacation to paradise they’ve dreamt about. They’ve been on clean, hard limestone all week. They’re prepared and plenty experienced for this climb.

The leader has reached a belay stance and is getting ready to bring up their partner. They are building an anchor on two shiny new bolts. As the leader flakes the rope, they see the first bolt on the next pitch is close, and they decide to clip the rope into it—giving their partner a little more of a top-rope in the last moves and setting them up for swinging into the next pitch. The follower gets to the anchor and clips in. What a climb! They both lean back to laugh.

Both anchor bolts break. They fall.

Only that extra bolt on the next pitch holds, keeping them from dying, but all three bolts were shiny and brand new.


Corrosion isn’t always visible, and there are a few different kinds of severe corrosion that result in scary failures like the one described above. These have been known for a long time in industries like construction and nuclear power, but it has only been in the last 20 years or so that we’ve recognized them in climbing anchors. These failures don’t require a lot of corrosion, just a very small amount. The two main types are Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) and Sulfur Stress Cracking (SSC), but there are others as well. For a number of reasons, these are really terrifying problems in climbing safety: they can happen very quickly without any easy-to- spot outward signs; they are difficult to predict; and they happen on stainless steels that climbers and route developers commonly think of as bomber. Like in any other part of climbing, assumptions can kill.

Starting in the late 1990s, climbers started talking about this issue. The problem seemed particularly obvious in coastal climbing areas, but it began to crop up elsewhere as well. Companies were quietly adjusting the alloying content of their wedge bolts, scientific papers were being written, and developers were beginning to use glue-ins and titanium. And ultimately, the Union Internationale des Associations d’Alpinisme (UIAA) Safety Commission (SafeComm) started looking into the issue in a rigorous way.

The UIAA is where the buck stops with global climbing safety. It is a union of climbing federations from 73 countries that works on things like mountain medicine, protecting climbing areas globally, organizing Ice Climbing World Cups, and standardizing training curricula and safe practices. It is where gear failure from all countries gets analyzed. It is where climbers, manufacturers, and labs come together to make climbing safer. As the national organization for climbers in America, the American Alpine Club is the U.S. representative to the UIAA.

To address the SCC issue, the SafeComm worked for almost 15 years to develop a new Rock Anchor Standard that tests the complete anchor—UIAA123. In the summer of 2025, we updated it at our 50th anniversary meeting with guidance on welding.


How Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC) Works

SCC starts with a pit on the surface of the material. This could be a small defect in the steel, damage caused by placing the bolt, or something left over from manufacturing. Pitting corrosion can also start the process. Pitting corrosion causes deepening pits to form in the surface and is typically fueled by the presence of chlorine. In all these types of corrosion, chlorine isn’t consumed, it is just something that facilitates the corrosion’s progress. That means it doesn’t take very much to make this happen—a high concentration, but not a large amount.

Once there is a deep enough pit, the process changes—in some cases it will stop here, but in others, the corrosion will develop into SCC and a crack will begin to extend from the bottom of the pit. This crack drives forward through the shaft of the bolt via a complex mechanism that doesn’t cause the outside of the bolt to corrode. In a short time, the bolt could break with body weight but show little sign of this danger.

Sulfur Stress Cracking (SSC) is similar in effect, but not in process. For now, we’ll focus on SCC.

Stress Corrosion Cracking requires three things: a susceptible material, a suitable environment, and sufficient stress in the material. None of these things are quite as straight-forward as they seem and the rate of cracking can vary from a few months to several years. However, solutions exist to keep our community safe.

Rethinking Susceptible Materials

Photo by AAC member Caleb Timmerman.

There are hundreds of alloys of stainless steel. Climbers have historically only used a few. These historically-used alloys tend to be more susceptible to SCC than zinc plated low carbon steel. There is a spectrum of resistance to SCC. The resistance of a material comes from more than just its chemical composition: It is influenced by its microstructure, and this is controlled by how it was manufactured.

The thermal history of a bolt—how it was heated and cooled—can have a particularly large effect on its resistance. In fact, a relatively resistant material can be made extremely susceptible to SCC through its manufacturing process. This is one reason why any welding in bolts or anchor rings and chains can be dangerous if not well controlled. It is not just about the type of steel alone.

Acknowledging the Environments That Facilitate SCC

The environments that cause SCC aren’t all that exotic. We’ve seen it in some places more than others, but the ingredients can be found at many crags. Only a small amount of chlorine is required. The presence of sulfur helps. Calcium can make both worse. Concentration right at the bolt is what matters, not how much there is in general.

These elements are not rare. Calcium is in many of the rocks we climb, not only limestone and dolomite. Sulfur can come from many sources: In the Pacific we see underwater volcanoes vent into the water; in swathes of the U.S., coal power plants create plumes of sulfur that drift eastward. Sulfur-reducing bacteria in the soils above our climbs convert it to a form that is more dangerous. Chlorine can come from seawater and spray hundreds of kilometers inland. It can come from road salt. It is in our sweat and in rocks and lakes.

TCE Installation steps: 1) the nut or bolt is turned to a specified maximum torque based on the shear strength of the bolt; 2) the shaft is pulled out of the hole; 3) friction between the rock and the collar keeps it in place, which causes expansion as the wedge on the shaft moves through it. As the wedge meets more and more resistance to pulling out, tensile stress is generated in the shaft which will be there from now on. Tension in the bolt shaft can be a factor that contributes to Stress Corrosion Cracking (SCC), as described on page 20. The second illustration above illustrates how hard it is to detect SCC. The third illustration shows how a small amount of corrosion in the expansion components of a TCE can lead to the bolt slowly moving out of the bolt hole instead of expanding more, even without SCC developing. Illustration by AAC member Stephen Gladiuex.

Understanding Stress Created by Bolt Type

Most of the fixed anchors we use are torque controlled expansion anchors (TCEs). This includes wedge bolts and sleeve bolts like the five-piece as well. Think of them as small machines that are part of the safety system. When the nut or bolt in these machines is turned, it creates tension in the shaft—when the shaft is pulled out by this tension, and the collar/sleeve stays put, it results in expansion at the back of the hole. There is no way to avoid this stress—it is inherent to the design of the bolt. This stress is there day and night. In this kind of bolt, that inherent stress allows SCC to form cracks across the shaft.

And even without SCC, and instead with the littlest bit of rust, these bolts can become ticking time bombs.

When the bolt was brand new, there was less friction between the wedge and the collar than there was between the collar and the rock. When it was initially tightened, this friction caused the collar to stay put—and instead the wedge moved and the bolt expanded. But with only six months and a winter, and the environment found at any crag in the U.S., now there is a little corrosion between the wedge and the collar.

When that first big fall happens, the wedge could expand just a little more, the machine would work, and the bolt could be stronger. The climber would see a spinning hanger, but after tightening it, the bolt wouldn’t move again until a bigger fall happened, which might never happen. It was able to have follow-up expansion because the machine in the back of the hole still worked.

In a different scenario, both the wedge and the collar could move out together, because they are stuck together due to just a little rust. The climber still sees a spinning hanger and still tightens it—but the bolt doesn’t expand more, it just moves out of the hole. It will keep pulling out, little by little, and keep getting weaker. Depending on the type of bolt, you may never know.

Different bolt types are also made differently. Any time metal is bent or reduced in size by a process called rolling, there are residual stresses in the material. Hangers and glue-ins exhibit these kinds of residual stresses, but they tend to be lower in magnitude, and that’s good. It is one of the reasons glue-in anchors are a better choice for corrosion. It would be possible to almost eliminate these residual stresses with an annealing heat treatment, but this would add cost.

If a good resin is used for a glue-in anchor, the bolts also get the added benefit of having the metal shaft insulated from contact with compounds in the rock or its surface.

All of this combines to make SCC difficult to predict, and especially difficult to estimate how long it will take to render a bolt unsafe. Often, the only sign that’s visible is a slight black ring around the shaft just at or inside the rock. It is tough to predict, it is tough to inspect, and it can kill.


UIAA123—Not as Simple as 1, 2, 3

In order to have confidence in our fixed anchors, we need to evaluate the entire bolt/ hanger/chain assembly, and its installation process as well. We need to pair these anchors with a crag environment that they can handle. The UIAA 2020 Rock Anchor Standard Update included testing the complete anchors and classifying them.

A lot of work went into figuring out the line between different environments, and how to test them in a repeatable way. You can now find bolts, hangers, and complete top anchors on the market that are certified to the UIAA Standard from a number of major brands such as Lappas, Fixe, AustriAlpin, Team Tough, and Climbing Bolt Supplies. Lappas and Fixe have anchors that have been certified at the SCC level as well.

In the spring of 2025 we met with bolt and anchor manufacturers and introduced a requirement to improve welding quality. This most commonly affects welded top anchor rings and chains, but also glue-ins where the ring is welded. Manufacturers are now required to follow welding industry standard quality controls. These standards ensure that welds are executed with the precision and quality needed to maintain the safety, reliability, and durability of the anchors. Most importantly, this will prevent any welds from being a sort of Achilles heel that cracks quickly in an otherwise safe anchor.

So now, with a classification of anchors and with tests, we’ll be safe, right? Not yet—there is more to do. We need to understand our crag environment in order to select the right bolt. It can vary pretty dramatically from route to route, and even bolt to bolt on a route. The classification must be sufficient for the whole route, and preferably the whole crag. One of the next projects we are working on at the UIAA is to improve the maps of corrosion risk and pin them with specific knowledge of crags and crag chemistry so that there can be better guidance for land managers and those placing bolts.


Next Steps

Recently at the UIAA SafeComm, we received a request from the town of Kalymnos, an iconic climbing area in Greece. They have many routes that are suffering from corroded anchors. Climbers have become an important part of the local economy, and Kalymnos has gotten a large grant to rebolt routes—but they don’t know whom to trust with this important task, or how it should be done. Not every climbing area is fortunate enough to have a great local climbing organization that is skilled in route maintenance.

At the UIAA we’re pivoting again to help solve this challenge. We’re beginning work on the idea of a rebolting certification course that will include feedback from all over the world to gather the best techniques. Pooling knowledge and techniques globally will pay off in making climbers and routes safer everywhere. It will also mean that land managers will have something to look toward when they are not sure whom to trust with the lives of people climbing, or with the conservation of crags.

The UIAA has been around since the early 1930s. We just hit the 75th anniversary of our first rope safety standard, and the 50th anniversary of the Safety Commission. In those years we’ve moved from climbers not knowing which ropes they could trust with their lives, which carabiners and helmets to use, to having gear so clearly marked and reliable that most climbers don’t think about it. With the new welding update to our Rock Anchor Standard, we are working toward the day that each fall on a bolt—no matter where you are in the world—can be infused with just as much trust.


About the Author

Stephen Gladieux has been the AAC delegate to the UIAA Safety Commission since 2020, and was a corresponding member and consulting expert since 2012. He’s been climbing for 31 years, and he holds a degree in materials science and engineering, as well as one in French literature from the University of Michigan. He does about half of his climbing underground and sees bolt failure all over (and under) the world. Stephen lives outside Portland, Oregon.


Sign Up for AAC Emails

Outdoor Alliance: Roping Up For Recreation Advocacy

In this episode of the podcast, we are celebrating the recipient of the AAC’s 2025 David Brower Conservation Award: Outdoor Alliance. Outdoor Alliance is the only organization in the U.S. that unites the voices of outdoor enthusiasts to conserve public lands and waters. OA advocates and amplifies the voices of recreationists to help ensure those lands are managed in a way that embraces the human-powered experience. Over the last 10 years, Outdoor Alliance has been instrumental in helping pass the EXPLORE Act in 2024, and they are receiving the Brower award for their work on passing this instrumental recreation bill. Dive in to the episode to hear about the origins of Outdoor Alliance and the power behind their methods and perspectives, featuring Outdoor Alliance CEO Adam Cramer, and the AAC’s Policy Director Byron Harvison.


Guidebook XIV—Policy Spotlight

Photo by AAC member Kennedy Carey.

EXPLORE—An Act and The Act

By AAC Advocacy Director Byron Harvison
Photos by AAC member Kennedy Carey

Act

1. A thing done; a deed.
2. A written ordinance of Congress, or another legislative body; a statute.
3. A main division of a play, ballet, or opera.

Drama

1. A play for theater, radio, or television.
2. An enticing, emotional, or unexpected series of events or set of circumstances.


EXPLORE, in the waning days of the 118th Congress, met every definition of the words “drama” and “act” as it made its way into becoming law. As I sat at my computer watching Senator Joe Manchin ask for unanimous consent of the bill on the Senate floor, it was not lost on me that years of work, by hundreds of organizations, teetered on the edge of achievement. And it passed in a most glorious fashion. But let me back up just a bit...

Act 1, Scene 1

Not too long ago, in early December of 2024, the AAC policy team traveled to Washington, DC, and met up with the Access Fund and American Mountain Guides Association (AMGA). The mission was clear—examine and pursue all avenues to get the EXPLORE Act passed. At that time, attachment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was still on the table, as was the possibility of being bundled in with the Continuing Resolution (CR) to keep the government funded. Additionally, there was the less probable route of the bill going “stand-alone” for a unanimous consent vote on the Senate floor, but we sensed that there wasn’t enough floor time, especially given the need to end the lame-duck session of Congress, and the condition that a unanimous consent vote had to actually be unanimous without a single dissenting vote.

Photo by AAC member Kennedy Carey.

It was an all-hands-on-deck moment for recreation-based organizations—Outdoor Alliance, Outdoor Recreation Roundtable, Surfrider, The Mountaineers, IMBA, Outdoor Industry Association, organizations representing hunting and fishing interests and RV interests, and many, many more orgs, all working simultaneously in an effort to see this historic recreation bill package passed.

Our small team focused a lot of effort on speaking with the bipartisan group of 16 senators that submitted a joint letter to the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior expressing the appropriateness of fixed anchors in Wilderness and wanting a report on the status of the agencies’ respective proposed fixed anchor regulations. The Protecting America’s Rock Climbing (PARC) Act, a component of the EXPLORE Act that serves to recognize recreational climbing (including the use, placement, and maintenance of fixed anchors) as an appropriate use within the National Wilderness Preservation System, further emphasized the intent of those senators, and of Congress more broadly, to preserve the historical and well-precedented practice of fixed anchor utilization in Wilderness.

Scene 2

It is no secret that the waning days of the 118th Congress were fairly chaotic. Characterized by the forthcoming change of administrations, few clear “unified” priorities, and the pending departure of several longtime members of Congress, the landscape was hard to navigate. We left DC understanding the potential pathways to passage of EXPLORE, but still not certain which vehicle would get it across the finish line. The following week we saw it miss the cut for the NDAA Manager’s Amendment and concentrated on advocating for its inclusion in the CR. As the days drew closer to a potential government shutdown, we came to understand that the CR was likely going to be relatively tight compared to previous iterations, and would probably not allow for bills such as EXPLORE to ride on it. The CR was out for us. That is when we heard that Senator Joe Manchin (I-WV) was considering introducing EXPLORE as a stand-alone bill.

Photo by AAC member Kennedy Carey.

This was INCREDIBLE news. However, we had some concerns as we knew that the Senate was working off of the House-passed version, which had been passed via unanimous consent (UC) in April of 2024, stewarded by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-AR). We understood that the Senate wanted the House to address some issues in the bill, but that would require the bill to be sent back to the House for consideration and a vote...which would require time. And there wasn’t any.

On the morning of December 19, we heard that Senator Manchin was planning to introduce the House version of EXPLORE on the Senate floor for a UC vote. For those tuning into the live broadcast, we had no idea what time the possible introduction would occur. It was observable that Senator Manchin was talking to a group of senators and then left the floor. A few hours later Senator Manchin appeared and presented the EXPLORE Act for consideration via a UC vote. During his introduction, he emphasized that the EXPLORE Act was “...something that we all agree on” and that “the House and Senate are in agreement,” and that there were some changes that needed to be made but could be accomplished during the next Congress. Now keep in mind, in order to pass via UC there cannot be a single vote of dissent.

Scene 3

After Senator Manchin teed the bill up for a vote, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) stepped up to the podium. He began by reserving his right to object until the end of his speech. This is to say that no one knew whether he would be objecting and opposing the UC of EXPLORE or allowing it to pass. He spoke to his TAKE IT DOWN Act, which is a bill seeking to protect victims of deepfake pornography. The years of work on all the bills associated with EXPLORE hung in the balance—all the work on SOAR, BOLT, VIP, and Recreation Not Red Tape, on the precipice of passage. You can imagine all the breaths that were being held while Senator Cruz spoke.

“I do not object.”

Those words, spoken as a favor to retiring Senator Manchin and Rep. Westerman, provided true theater drama that we are generally accustomed to watching in a much different environment. The historic EXPLORE Act was passed, via unanimous consent through the Senate, and was on its way to the president. On January 4, 2025, President Biden signed the EXPLORE Act into law, and it became Public Law Number 118-234.

Act 1, Scene 3, complete.

Act 2

As EXPLORE was being teed up for a vote in the Senate, the National Park Service quietly announced that it was withdrawing its proposed fixed anchor guidance. This gesture suggests a new window of opportunity for climbing organizations, as well as other interested recreation and search and rescue organizations, to work in collaboration with land agencies to develop sound fixed anchor policies that reflect the direction of Congress and their passing of the PARC Act.

The AAC Policy Team and the Executive Director have visited DC over the last two months, working carefully with our partner organizations in these quickly evolving times to support the implementation of EXPLORE, discuss impacts on our public lands as a result of the federal reductions in force, and address other issues.

Stay tuned on the AAC’s digital platforms to learn more about the status of public lands policies, and how they impact, or may impact, climbers.


Sign Up for AAC Emails

EXPLORE Act Passes and NPS Discontinues Fixed Anchor Proposal

Wrapping up after a long day of work. AAC Member Andy Cochrane.

It has been a momentous week for climbing policy, and we want to thank all of you who shared your voices with your legislators on these matters. The EXPLORE Act, which the AAC and its partners have been working on in some form or another for nearly 10 years, passed with unanimous consent, and is awaiting a presidential signature as we speak. Secondly, the National Park Service announced late Wednesday afternoon (December 18th) that they were discontinuing the development of their proposed fixed anchor guidance.

What does this mean for climbers?


The EXPLORE Act:

The EXPLORE Act, introduced by Rep Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), is a historic recreation package that has had widespread bipartisan support and support from outdoor recreationists of all stripes—including climbers, mountain bikers, hunters, anglers, and more. 

The most important elements of the EXPLORE Act for climbers are two-fold. 

First, EXPLORE includes the Protecting America’s Rock Climbing (PARC) Act, introduced by Rep. Joe Neguse (D-CO) and Rep John Curtis (R-UT). The PARC Act is intended to ensure safe and sustainable access to rock climbing in designated Wilderness areas. It requires federal agencies to recognize recreational climbing as an appropriate activity in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, as well as recognizing that the placement, use, and maintenance of fixed anchors is appropriate. The act also ensures that a public comment period is made available prior to any final climbing management guidance being issued. Essentially, the PARC Act officially recognizes that the use of fixed anchors for climbing (and Search and Rescue operations) continues to be appropriate in Wilderness areas, provided it does not diminish the wilderness character of the area.

Second, EXPLORE includes the Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act (SOAR Act), which will increase accessibility to the outdoors by improving recreational permitting for outfitters and guides. How? By:

  • Streamlining the process of issuing permits to guides and outfitters

  • Make more recreation opportunities available by extending the term of temporary permits and creating a program for sharing unused guide days between permit holders.

  • Reduce barriers to accessing public lands for school districts, city recreation departments, and university groups.

  • Increase permit system transparency by directing the land management agencies to notify the public when new recreation permits are available and ensuring that agencies respond to permit requests in a timely manner.

  • Reduce permit fees and costs for small businesses and organizations

  • Help control liability insurance costs for permit holders by allowing them to use liability release forms with clients.

Additional elements of the EXPLORE Act include improving access to parks and public lands for veterans and people with disabilities by building additional accessible trails; the BOLT Act, which will create more long-distance biking trails; and the codification of FICOR and the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership, which funds local parks and green spaces, and provides direct access to funding for tribes for developing green spaces.

AAC Member Andy Cochrane

AAC Executive Director Ben Gabriel synthesized this win, saying: “It has been such a privilege to work with all the outdoor recreation organizations, and legislators from both chambers and parties, to see the EXPLORE Act through. This historic recreation package will broadly serve the public, protect recreation resources, and provide for our gateway communities.”

As you might imagine, the AAC is thrilled with what this all means for public lands and accessibility to climbing across the United States! This win would not be possible without the combined efforts of our incredible partners, especially Outdoor Alliance, Access Fund, AMGA, and The Mountaineers. 


Fixed Anchor Policy:

The National Park Service announced on December 18th that they were discontinuing the development of their proposed fixed anchor guidance. The update said that, "Park leaders will continue to manage climbing activities in Wilderness on a park-by-park basis consistent with applicable law and policy, including the Wilderness Act." This announcement comes nearly a year after Park officials sought public comment on proposed regulations which suggested a new interpretation of installations as defined in the Wilderness Act. This new interpretation, which could have prohibited fixed anchors in Wilderness, was met with significant concern from climbers, climbing organizations, and other recreation enthusiasts, as well as search and rescue professionals, throughout the country.  

The AAC thanks the NPS for sensing the need to reevaluate the proposed regulations and looks forward to collaborating with them in the future on fixed anchor guidance.

The AAC, Access Fund, Mountaineers, and many other organizations, worked tirelessly to educate lawmakers on the potential impacts of prohibiting fixed anchors, which resulted in 14 Senators reaching out to the Secretaries of the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture, requesting an update on the proposed regulations as well as emphasizing their disapproval of the interpretation of the Wilderness Act.

AAC Executive Director, Ben Gabriel, reflects: “We are thankful for the continued integrity and hard work of the NPS. Recognizing the balance of promoting recreation with the preservation of our natural resources, we look forward to working with NPS to develop sound policies that achieve both of these objectives.”

It is important to note that the United States Forest Service is continuing to consider their own proposed climbing management plan regarding fixed anchors in Wilderness areas, but their forthcoming decisions will be impacted by the PARC Act being signed into law. 

Thank you to our many partners for their part in this work. Below, a few of these partners reflect on the significance of the discontinuation of the NPS proposal to their organizations and the climbers they represent:

“The Mountaineers commends the Department of the Interior for withdrawing its proposal to restrict fixed anchors in Wilderness areas. This decision protects sustainable climbing and safe outdoor education, and strengthens the conservation movement to protect public lands. We’re grateful that our federal leaders listened to the voices of climbers, outdoor educators, conservation advocates, Washington State’s U.S. Senators Cantwell and Murray, and all those who value the intersection between human-powered recreation and conservation.” –Tom Vogl, CEO, The Mountaineers

Time for a base camp nap. AAC Member Andy Cochrane

“As climbers, fixed anchors are essential pieces of our safety system that allow us to safely and sustainably access vertical terrain. Without fixed anchors, many of the wildest and most inspiring places in America would become inaccessible to the public.” —Heather Thorne, Executive Director, Access Fund

“This is a meaningful step in the ongoing dialog between the climbing community and the regulatory agencies, NPS and NFS.  Protecting the Wilderness based on the fundamentals of clean climbing a la the Yosemite Climber's Credo is a needed collaboration with mutual goals. ‘United we stand!’”—Jerry Gallwas, YCA Board Chair

“I'm happy to see that wilderness climbing, in iconic locations and lesser-known crags, is protected thanks to the efforts of a broad coalition of passionate climbers and outdoor recreation allies. This decision ensures that climbers will continue to enjoy transformative experiences in these special areas while working toward balanced, long-term solutions that protect both wilderness and climbing access.”—Andrew Blann, Vice President, Arkansas Climber’s Coalition

Guidebook XII—AAC Advocacy

Photos by Torch Pictures.

Teaming Up in DC

By The Editors

As the AAC’s General Counsel and Advocacy Director, Byron Harvison, put it, advocacy work is like “being in charge of building and maintaining an aircraft while it’s already flying in the air—and there are still no guarantees. This work requires constant attention to detail and management of hundreds of relationships.” To your average climber who cares about public lands and advocating for climbing landscapes, the constant awareness of legislative processes and advocacy relationships can be exhausting— the runout pitch where you’d rather cede the lead. But for the AAC advocacy team and our partners like Outdoor Alliance, it’s the money pitch—our opportunity to ensure the perspec- tives of our members and other recreationists inform the policies that shape America’s public lands and recreational spaces.

That’s why this September, the AAC advocacy team, including AAC President Nina Williams, AAC Executive Director Ben Gabriel, AAC Deputy Director Ashlee Milanich, and AAC General Counsel and Advocacy Director Byron Harvison, showed up in DC–to pay attention to the details. One of those key details is our partnership with Outdoor Alliance (OA), a coalition of outdoor recreation nonprofit organizations that work together towards our shared goals of conservation and protecting public lands. On just this one trip to DC, the AAC team joined up with our OA coalition members, holding more than 80 meetings over two days with members of Congress and the Administration to advocate for protecting public lands, improving outdoor recreation, and funding the outdoors. Plus, we hung out with Tommy Caldwell to swap stories and inform legislators about the power of climbing in these incredible landscapes.

The trip was a celebration of Outdoor Alliance’s 10th anniversary, and the many wins that a collaboration between outdoor recreationists can accomplish. Since Outdoor Alliance started ten years ago, the coalition has collectively helped protect 40 million acres of public land and water, secured $5.1 billion in funding for the outdoors, and been instrumental in empowering outdoor enthu- siasts to become outdoor advocates. New to the Outdoor Alliance is the Grasstops Collective. It is a leadership and advocacy development program that trains grasstops advocates to build relationships with policymakers and advocate for conservation priorities. Grasstops leaders are unique for their meaningful voice in their communities, whether they are in business, nonprofit, or local government. This trip featured the OA’s first cohort from the Grasstops Collective joining legisla- tive and agency meetings.

“The collaborative energy of all the Outdoor Alliance organizations representing different sectors of the outdoor community was amaz- ing! There is a definite impact on legislators and their staff members when we all come to the table together. I’m a climber sitting next to a surfer and a paddler and a biker, and we all have different but equally compelling stories to share on why this legislation (the EXPLORE Act) should pass,” reflected Harvison.

One of OA and the AAC’s biggest policy priorities for the end of the year is the EXPLORE Act. The recreation community has been working for years on proposals to strengthen, protect, and expand outdoor recreation opportunities on our public lands and waters. As participation in outdoor recreation grows, it becomes even more important that public land management agencies like the Forest Service, Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management have sound policies and resources in place that will support sustainable and equitable outdoor recreation access. The EXPLORE Act is a first-of-its-kind package of recreation policy. It includes provisions that would safeguard rock climbing, identify and create long-distance bike trails, improve recreational permitting for outfitters and guides, and make permanent the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership, which provides grants for green space in urban areas. Notably, the much talked about PARC Act, heavily supported by the Access Fund, is bundled into the EXPLORE Act, with the intention to protect the responsible use of bolts in Wilderness areas.

“The Outdoor Alliance 10th anniversary cele- bration in Washington DC reinforced the collective energy and determination needed to advance legislation like the EXPLORE Act. It highlights how partnerships are essential to advocating in service of our members,” said Ben Gabriel when reflecting on the power of the week-long trip.

Congress has a lot on its plate, including determining a federal budget, wading through the complexity of major wars throughout the world, and much more. With all that to work through, it’s no wonder that the EXPLORE Act has continued to be deferred as a main concern. However, there is overwhelming bipartisan support in the House and the Senate for the EXPLORE Act, and several complex paths for it to potentially pass. It’s all in the details, which is where outdoor advocates and policy leaders can step in.

We were joined by champions from American Whitewater, Access Fund, American Canoe Association, IMBA, The Mountaineers, Surfrider, Winter Wildlands Alliance, and leaders from the OA Grasstops Collective, as well as by partners at REI and Patagonia.


Support This Work— Join or Give Today

Your contribution will significantly impact climbers—whether they are learning how to avoid accidents through our updated database, using research funding to analyze melting ice caps and the changing heights of iconic mountains, or pursuing first ascents around the world. Your gift makes these things possible.

A Long and Winding Road: An Update on the EXPLORE Recreation Package

PC: Andrew Burr

By: Byron Harvison, AAC General Counsel and Advocacy Director

First ascents are usually full of surprises. That’s why we love doing them. It takes every bit of your skill and experience to navigate all the known and unknown challenges the route throws at you. Like a FA, the first-of-its-kind EXPLORE Act Recreation Package is presenting challenges and proving there is more work to put in.  

You may recall that the EXPLORE Act (Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences) was unanimously passed in the House last April after being introduced by Representative Westerman (R-AR) and Representative Grijalva (D-AZ).  It contains several pieces of legislation deeply impacting recreation. The Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act (SOAR) has been a priority for the AAC and partner organizations such as the AMGA, Outdoor Alliance, and The Mountaineers for 10 years. It updates and streamlines recreational permitting for guides, making the outdoors more accessible.

EXPLORE also includes the Protecting America’s Rock Climbing Act (PARC), which the AAC and Access Fund have collaborated on extensively, that will help safeguard the historic use and maintenance of fixed anchors in Wilderness, and reaffirms the appropriateness of climbing on public lands.

Other elements in the package include the BOLT Act, making FICOR (the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation) permanent as well as the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership, Recreation Not Red Tape, and several pieces of legislation impacting outdoor infrastructure.  

During our most recent visit to DC in September, in conjunction with the celebration of Outdoor Alliance’s 10th Anniversary, we teamed up to urge Senators to find floor time to pass EXPLORE as a stand alone bill or to attach it to must-pass legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Unfortunately, EXPLORE did not make it into the NDAA’s Manager’s Amendment, which exhausts that route for passage.  

Congress has been preoccupied with funding the federal government, resulting in a (now typical) Continuing Resolution to fund the government at the current levels until December 20th. Given the dynamics of it being an election year and certain change of leadership, and the impacts of a lame duck session, it is quite difficult to predict exactly how EXPLORE may be able to pass this Congress.

One potential scenario is that it may be grouped in with a larger year-end lands package, which can be a good thing, but could be complicated given the varied political motivations of legislators post-election. With the strong bipartisan and bicameral support of EXPLORE we are hopeful that we can find a path to secure the passage of the recreation package this Congress regardless of the outcome of the election. 

One thing is for sure, there are no guarantees. Just as the summit is never guaranteed in climbing, no piece of legislation is a sure thing. We will continue to push forward and put the work in, one foot after another, and see it through.


Commit To Vote. Learn More Below.



Outdoor Alliance and American Alpine Club Working Together to Protect Rock Climbing Landscapes 

Will Plantz trys hard as the sun fades on Johnny Cat in Indian Creek, within Bears Ears National Monument. Photo by AAC member Will McKay

Climbers have a meaningful relationship with the landscapes they love, and advocating for public lands is a critical piece of that relationship. Outdoor recreationists have a powerful connection to place, and that connection makes us a powerful force for conservation. Outdoor Alliance is a national coalition of outdoor recreation advocacy groups that American Alpine Club has been a part of for six years, and together, we work to protect public lands and waters and advocate for climbing and other outdoor recreation. The AAC is the largest community of climbers in the country, and is dedicated to advocating for climbing landscapes and resourcing climbers with essential climbing knowledge and rescue coverage.

Since Outdoor Alliance started ten years ago, the coalition has helped protect 40 million acres of public land and water, secured $5.1 billion in funding for the outdoors, and has converted hundreds of thousands of outdoor enthusiasts into outdoor advocates.

Here are some of important victories that the American Alpine Club (AAC) and Outdoor Alliance (OA) have notched together:

Passing the EXPLORE Act in the House

Climbing on the Diamond of Longs Peak. Photo by Louder Than Eleven

The EXPLORE Act is a first-of-its-kind package of outdoor recreation policy that has been a priority for Outdoor Alliance for many years; the package recently passed the House. It includes sections that will directly protect rock climbing experiences on public lands, a big priority for the AAC. 

The Protecting America’s Rock Climbing (PARC) Act is a significant piece of the EXPLORE Act, and has been a focus for the AAC, Access Fund, and the wider Outdoor Alliance coalition. The PARC Act is intended to ensure safe and sustainable access to rock climbing in designated Wilderness areas. It requires federal agencies to recognize recreational climbing as an appropriate activity in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, which states that the placement, use, and maintenance of fixed anchors is appropriate, and ensures that a public comment period is made available to stakeholders prior to any final climbing management guidance being issued.

The AAC has also educated their members about the SOAR Act, joining the AMGA who is one of the principle long-time supportess of the SOAR Act. This is another piece of the EXPLORE Act which will streamline recreational permitting for outfitters and guides, benefiting other Outdoor Alliance members like The Mountaineers, Mazamas, and Colorado Mountain Club.  

Now that The House has voted to pass EXPLORE, the AAC and OA are advocating for the Senate to also get it across the finish line. Learn more and write your lawmakers about it here

Restoration of Bears Ears National Monument 

In 2018, the Trump Administration rolled back protections for the Bears Ears National Monument by more than 80% and Grand Staircase-Escalante by nearly half. Since then, the AAC and its partners at Outdoor Alliance have been continuously educating outdoor enthusiasts about the fight to preserve Bears Ears. This included a lawsuit led by Access Fund against the Trump administration, advocating for the monument to be restored, and participating in a public comment on a new management plan for the restored monument.

In 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration restored protections for Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase, which honored the voices of Indigenous communities, climbers, and conservationists alike. The coalition work led by Outdoor Alliance was hugely impactful in bringing outdoor recreationists together on this issue. The AAC is committed to keeping their members updated on future management plans and staying active in this ongoing discussion. The AAC will continue advocating for the role of climbing and responsible conservation by sharing their expertise on land management issues pertaining to climbing, and interfacing with land management agencies, the BLM and USFS, as well as other partners and local and national climbing organizations, to continue to refine the Bears Ears National Monument Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. 

Advocating for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Photo credit: Grey Satterfield

In 2020, the American Alpine Club, and another Outdoor Alliance coalition member, Winter Wildlands Alliance, joined forces to sue the Trump administration for making devastating changes to NEPA. For the past 50 years, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has ensured that climbers and skiers have a voice in how the federal government manages our public lands. Whether it’s issues like climbing regulations in forest planning, balancing recreation with cultural preservation, or accounting for impacts to the climate from energy development on public lands—NEPA ensures that the federal government incorporates science and public outreach in the decision-making process. NEPA assures that the federal government operates with transparency and is held accountable for the decisions made on public lands. Having transparent decision making and accountability is particularly important to the climbing community as many of our cherished climbing areas are located on federal public lands across the country. The AAC and Winter Wildlands Alliance also petitioned the Biden administration in 2021 to take action to repair the law by restoring critical regulatory requirements that were removed in 2020.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality heard our requests, and began a two phase process to reverse the damaging 2020 changes to the regulations that implement NEPA. The final rule restores critical pieces of NEPA, and the AAC and other Outdoor Alliance members will continue to defend NEPA and ensure strong environmental protections and public comment periods. 

Amending the Colorado Recreational Use Statute (CRUS)

Photo credit: Grey Satterfield

Recreational Use Statutes across the United States protect private landowners from liability when they open up their land to the public for outdoor recreation. But a gap in Colorado’s Recreational Use Statute was causing landowners to feel insecure about the liability they faced, and therefore unwilling to accept the risk of keeping their land open to the public for activities like hiking, mountain biking, and climbing. This gap resulted in the closure of such Colorado hiking icons as Mount Lindsey, Mount Democrat, Mount Cameron, and Mount Lincoln. Outdoor Alliance and the the AAC both joined the Fix CRUS Coalition to activate Colorado recreationalists and advocate to update Colorado’s Recreational Use Statute. In 2024, the Fix CRUS Coalition successfully updated the Colorado Recreational Use Statute, when the CO Congress passed SB-58, ultimately strengthening protection for landowners, ensuring Colorado’s recreational opportunities that exist on private lands remain available to Colorado’s outdoor enthusiasts. 

Get Involved with Outdoor Alliance

Outdoor Alliance is a nonprofit coalition of organizations that includes American Whitewater, American Canoe Association, Access Fund, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, American Alpine Club, the Mazamas, Colorado Mountain Club, and Surfrider Foundation. For 10 years, Outdoor Alliance has united the human-powered outdoor recreation community to achieve lasting conservation victories. Our work has permanently protected 40 million acres of public land, secured $5.1 billion in funding for the outdoors, and has converted more than 100,000 outdoor enthusiasts into outdoor advocates. 

For more information, visit www.outdooralliance.org






AAC Submits Comment on Proposed Bears Ears Climbing Management Plan

PC: Jeremiah Watt

On March 8, 2024 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) opened the public comment period for the Bears Ears National Monument Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, notably impacting the world-renowned climbing of Indian Creek, UT. The BLM and USFS held open-house style public meetings with opportunities to speak with resource specialists, as well as provided virtual meeting options to attend. The public comment period closed Tuesday, June 11th, and the AAC submitted the comment below which supports tribal co-management of the Monument, makes recommendations on zoning/area designations, asks questions regarding proposed permitting and closure criteria, and other topics of interest to the climbing community. Read on to learn more about the draft management plan and the AAC’s perspective on it.


June 11, 2024

Bureau of Land Management

Bears Ears National Monument

Monticello Field Office

P.O. Box 7

Monticello, Utah 84535

Email: [email protected]

RE: Public Comment, Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Bears Ears National Monument (BENM)

The American Alpine Club (“AAC”) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Bears Ears National Monument. The BENM, and more specifically Indian Creek, is a world-class destination for rock climbing and attracts many of the AAC’s 26,000-plus members nationwide to climb and enjoy the recreation and cultural resources in BENM. The AAC looks forward to continued engagement with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in regard to climbing management and values the efforts of the BLM and USFS to steward the abundant and unique resources of BENM. This RMP will be critical in managing the ecological, cultural, and natural resources of the BENM, especially as more people recreate in the outdoors in all forms of activities. The AAC would like to be considered a resource for the BLM and USFS in helping steward these important resources for generations to come and support the BLM’s and USFS’s effort to create an informed and enduring RMP.

I. The American Alpine Club

The AAC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Golden, Colorado, with over 26,000 members nationally. Founded in 1902 to support the research and exploration of mountainous regions, the AAC remains committed to supporting the climbing and human-powered outdoor recreation communities over a century later. Grounded in community and location, the AAC’s mission is to share and support members’ passion for climbing and respect for the places they climb. Through education, community gatherings, stewardship, policy, advocacy, and scientific research, the AAC strives to build a united community of competent climbers and healthy climbing landscapes.

II. Alternative E

A. Tribal Co-Management. The AAC supports the recommended tribal co-management of BENM found in Alternative E1 [1]. Recognizing that this is a precedent-setting methodology of management that may serve as a model for future co-management opportunities, we seek several points of clarification within Alternative E that we hope will be addressed prior to or in conjunction with any implementation plan. While we find points of merit in all the alternatives presented in the Draft RMP, we believe that any plan which does not include a component of tribal co-management would be a missed opportunity to recognize Traditional Indigenous Knowledge (TIK)[2] as a valuable resource in decision-making regarding conservation, environmental, and cultural resources. We support utilization of the Bears Ears Commission (BEC) established in 2016 [3], as described in the Presidential Proclamation creating BENM, stating:

“In recognition of the importance of tribal participation to the care and management of the objects identified above, and to ensure that management decisions affecting the monument reflect tribal expertise and traditional and historical knowledge, a Bears Ears Commission (Commission) is hereby established to provide guidance and recommendations on the development and implementation of management plans and on management of the monument.” [4]
— from the Presidential Proclamation Creating BENM

B. Zones. Alternative E proposes the management of recreation through a zoned approach, designating four zones consisting of Front Country, Passage, Outback, and Remote [5]. This zoned approach would largely remove existing recreation management designations (such as Recreation Management Zones (RMZ) and Special Recreation Management Areas). The Indian Creek area, as an area of primary interest to the climbing community, would be largely located in the Outback and Remote Zones [6]. Indian Creek is currently designated as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), and subject to the regulations associated with that SRMA [7] such as dispersed camping regulations, regulations regarding interaction with archeological sites, wild species avoidance guidance, trail usage regulations, and more.

The novel zone designations as written and applied to the zoning proposed for Indian Creek are unnecessarily restrictive and do not allow for future management flexibility. In Remote Zones no “new sites/facilities/trails would be developed”[8] and in Outback Zones no “new sites/facilities would be developed”[9] except for the possibility of “minor recreation facilities such as trails, trailhead markers, and informational kiosks” [10] when deemed “necessary.” These in toto exclusions do not provide land managers with the flexibility for future management concerns, which are easily accounted for in the existing SRMA and can be tailored in future SRMA or RMZ designations. We recommend utilizing a hybrid zone/designation system such as that utilized in the 2020 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan [11] which allows for the development of SRMAs and RMZs that are more tailored within any zone, or sub-component of a zone, to address the specific management concerns of that zone and accounting for BEC collaboration in that decision-making process. The SRMAs and/or RMZs would be managed in accordance with the distinct recreation-tourism market for which they were created and in conjunction with the BEC.

C. Permitting. The proposal to develop a Monument permit system that would require a permit for all “private overnight and day use in all canyons”[12] is a dramatic departure from current practices. If the intent is to simply account for the general number and whereabouts of visitors on a no-cost basis then the AAC supports that proposition provided it has varying methods of registration accommodating various ability levels (i.e., in-person, web-based, etc). If the recommendation is for a permit fee structure, we would request an opportunity to see the specific proposed permit fees prior to making recommendations on a permitting plan. However, we do generally support increased management of the resources at BENM and understand permitting may be a requisite component of efficient management of the resources.

D. Approval Process for New Routes. The AAC appreciates the agencies. recognizing that the climbing in BENM located in and around Indian Creek is “world famous”[13] and important to the local recreation economy [14]. The climbing activity specific management proposal [15] is of particular interest to our membership and impacts climbers worldwide. We support the recommendation that, “replacement of existing bolts, anchors, and fixed gear would be allowed on existing climbing and canyoneering routes as needed for safety reasons without prior authorization”[16]. In regard to the approval of new routes which require fixed anchors we recommend that, where appropriate, the agencies in collaboration with the BEC and delegated climbing organizations/representatives consider programmatic approval of routes for specific zones when considering the overall new route approval process. We also recommend that an interim process of route approval be developed prior to implementation in order to ensure that new routes can be considered by land managers and the BEC while the new process is under consideration, avoiding a de facto moratorium on new route development. For both the interim and final climbing management plans we recommend that local climbers and climbing organizations be engaged in the process for substantive input to inform those plans.

E. Closures. The draft plan states that, “Existing access points, trails, and climbing routes that are consistent with the protection of BENM objects would remain available for use. If site-specific impacts exist, climbing routes can be closed and access trails and staging areas may be closed or rerouted”[17] and that, “Climbing closures would be identified in accordance with applicable law” [18]. The AAC asks for clarification on what criteria would be utilized in the determination of “consistent with the protection of BENM” as well as the criteria that would be utilized to determine “impact.” We understand that the criteria could be dependent upon whether the closure is aimed to protect an ecological/biological resource such as raptors, or a cultural resource such as an archaeological site. We also seek clarification of the factors or criteria to be considered for determining a “resource rest” is appropriate to justify a closure, as well as how the length of time for a resource rest would be calculated.

F. Commercial Filming. Under Alternative E no commercial filming would be allowed [19]. We believe that a wholesale prohibition to commercial filming on BENM could be a missed opportunity to promote the cultural, biological, and ecological relevance of the Monument, as well as amplifying best-practices through the media arts. The agencies should consider reviewing commercial project proposals in conjunction with the BEC through the existing film permitting system [20] and consider those that may enhance and/or promote the image of BENM.

III. Conclusion

The American Alpine Club values this opportunity to represent over 26,000 members, and the collective climbing community, on the future of climbing management in the Bears Ears National Monument. In summary, the AAC would like to reiterate our strong support of this historic tribal co-management opportunity through the BEC. We ask that consideration be given to preserving the current SRMA in Indian Creek, or future SRMAs/RMZs, in order to remain flexible for current and future recreation needs. We seek clarification on matters concerning permitting and fees, new climbing route approval processes, and criteria for area closure and rest periods. Additionally, we ask that consideration be given to the outright prohibition of commercial filming on the Monument.

The AAC will remain committed to instilling the ethos of utilizing the best low-impact climbing techniques and practices, and staunchly supporting appropriate recreation on our Nation’s public lands. The AAC is ready and willing to assist the BLM and USFS to develop a plan that sustainably manages the climbing resources of Bears Ears National Monument, while protecting the culturally significant resources of the Monument. The AAC looks forward to continuing to work with the agencies in the interim and through the implementation of this plan.

Respectfully,

Byron E. Harvison

Director, Policy and Government Affairs

The American Alpine Club


1–U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Bears Ears National Monument, Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1: Executive Summary and Chapters 1-4, 2.1.6, March 2024.

2— Ibid, 3.3.

3—Presidential Proclamation 9558, Establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument, 82 Federal Register 1139, December 28, 2016.

4—Ibid, page 1144.

5—See U.S. DOI, U.S.D.A., BENM at ES-4.6.

6–U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National NEPA Register, BENM Draft RMP/EIS Interactive Map, BLM UT BENM Zones Alt E Draft, release date March 13, 2024, accessed June 5, 2024. https://eplanning.blm.gov/EPLCommentMap/?itemId=f11acb57f3f64bbf922335ad796faa20

7— See https://www.blm.gov/visit/indian-creek-bears-ears-national-monument#:~:text=The%20Indian%20Creek%20Special%20Recreation,of%20Bears%20Ears%20National%20Monument. Accessed May 29, 2024.

8— See U.S. DOI, U.S.D.A., BLM, BENM at 2-82.

9— Ibid.

10— Ibid.

11— U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Record Decision and Approved Resource Management Plans for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 85 Federal Register 9802, February 2, 2020.

12– See U.S. DOI, U.S.D.A., BLM, BENM at 2-102.

13— Ibid at 1-3.

14— Ibid at 1-3, and ES-24.

15— See U.S. DOI, U.S.D.A., BLM, BENM at 2-115.

16— Ibid.

17— Ibid at 2-80.

18— Ibid.

19– Ibid at 2-75.

20— https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/leases-and-permits/filming-on-public-lands/film-permitting-process, accessed June 3, 2024.

Fixed Anchors: What's Next?

A Brief Update on What’s Next When it Comes to Fixed Anchors in Wilderness

Photo by Sterling Boin.

The climbing community is collectively holding its breath while we wait to find out what the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service are going to do with their proposed regulations on fixed anchors. Now that the public comment period is over, and the agencies are categorizing, and reviewing the thousands of comments, we wait. The gravity of these proposed regulations is not lost on any of us, and we want the agencies to take their time and appropriately consider the issue from all angles.

As we wait, many of you are wondering, “What’s next?” There are a few different paths this issue can take. After reviewing the public comments, the agencies could implement the regulations as written, making no changes at all. The agencies could consider the specific issues the public noted and modify the regulations. The agencies could do nothing and could delay implementation pending further consideration of the issue.

One move the agencies could take, which the AAC hopes they strongly consider, is a committee-based resolution. Utilizing the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), negotiated rulemaking process, or similar collaborative process, an appointed committee could tackle this complicated and nuanced issue head on. The committee could consist of agency representatives, wilderness advocates, climbing advocates, and any other appropriate groups, and would address fixed anchors and their usage in Wilderness. The AAC, Access Fund, Outdoor Alliance, AMGA, Wilderness Society, and many others made this recommendation to the agencies in our public comments and believe it to be a viable option for the agencies to address the proposed regulations through a collaborative process. The AAC is working to activate our volunteer network and climbing advocacy volunteers towards sharing their own thoughts on the potential of the FACA process.

In the interim, the AAC will communicate with the agencies, land managers, and legislators and keep the climbing community informed. If this issue is important to you, continue to contact your legislators and tell them why it matters. Stay tuned!

Fix CRUS: Help Protect Public Access to Recreation in Colorado!

Mining remains on Mount Sherman. Photo by Katie Sauter.

Policy Alert: Take Action!

As climbers, many of us are familiar with the often delicate and fragile access to climbing on private land. In Colorado, we now have the opportunity to pass legislation to ensure that our access to our beloved climbing areas is no longer so tenuous.

The crux of the matter is liability. The current Colorado Recreational Use Statute (CRUS) has private landowners concerned about the liability they take on when they allow the public to access their lands for recreation. The result has been a drastic number of closures or uncertainty for some of Colorado's most iconic recreational areas—including 14ers, attending the Leadville 100, and even climbing in Ouray Ice Park.

The AAC is part of the Fix CRUS Coalition, and we have worked alongside our partners as they crafted SB-58, a landmark bill that will fix the Colorado Recreational Use Statute (CRUS), ensure the balance of landowner rights, and protect public access to our state's natural wonders that are on private land. 

Now, we need your voice to turn this work into a reality. This impacts more than just Colorado climbers, but our entire outdoor family that utilizes Colorado lands. 


What SB-58 Does

This bill takes a carefully balanced approach to help limit landowner liability exposure while ensuring visitors are aware of non-obvious or man-made hidden hazards. SB-58 would do the following:

  • Protect landowners who put a warning sign up with pre-approved language at the main access point from lawsuits related to most natural, agricultural, and mining-related hazards.

  • Clarify that visitors must use a designated access point, stay on trails and within approved areas or they will be classified a trespasser for purposes of liability (not criminality).

  • Update which recreational activities are protected by CRUS, to include rock climbing, ice climbing, trail running, backcountry skiing, rafting, and kayaking, etc.


Your Role: Advocate for Colorado's Outdoors

Your voice is crucial. We urge you to contact your Colorado State Senator and Representative and express your support for SB-58 asking them to support and cosponsor the bill.

SB 58 is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Mark Baisley and Dylan Roberts, and Representatives Shannon Bird and Brianna Titone. This bill has passed out of committee with unanimous consent, and we just need voices from Colorado outdoors enthusiasts like you to push it over the edge and make it a reality! 


Interested in learning how liability concerns impact recreation across the country? Do a deep dive into recreation, private land, and liability with our article “Whose Risk Is It?”

The AAC's Official Stance on the Proposed Fixed Anchor Guidance from the NPS and USFS

Photo by Sterling Boin.

Thanks to the diligent and extensive research and work by our policy director, Byron Harvison, the AAC has submitted the following public comments to the National Park Service (NPS) and United States Forest Service (USFS) respectively, about their proposed fixed anchor guidance in Wilderness Areas, on January 30th, 2024. Read the full statements by clicking each button.


An Excerpt:

“The AAC would like the National Park Service (NPS) and United States Forest Service (USFS) to adopt guidance which affirms that fixed anchors are not installations prohibited by the Wilderness Act and allow agency land managers to administer their areas in a similar manner with what had been established under NPS Director’s Order #41. In lieu of publishing such guidance, the AAC would ask that the NPS and USFS convenes a committee pursuant to the negotiated rulemaking process, or similar collaborative process, in order to address the issue of fixed anchors in Wilderness and implement guidelines following a committee report. The AAC reiterates that the MRA process is not only a technically incorrect tool for the evaluation of fixed anchors, but cannot be practically implemented due to agency underfunding and limited staffing, and such a process will inevitably lead to management by moratorium.

“The AAC will remain committed to instilling the ethos of maintaining wilderness character, utilizing the best low-impact climbing techniques and practices, and staunchly supporting appropriate recreation in Wilderness. The AAC is ready and willing to assist the NPS and USFS to deliver on their dual mandate of conserving Wilderness characteristics while also ensuring the benefit and enjoyment of the Wilderness for the broader public.”


Cathedrals of Wilderness

Three First Ascents from the Historic Roots of Wilderness Climbing

By Hannah Provost

Photo by Sterling Boin.

Wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.
— 4.3(b) of the Wilderness Act, 1964

With much ado about whether the NPS and USFS will prohibit fixed anchors in Wilderness areas, the AAC thought we’d lean into one of our strengths—the immense amount of climbing history at our fingertips, thanks to nearly 100 years of documenting climbing through the American Alpine Journal and the AAC Library. Climbers have been utilizing and advocating for the responsible and thoughtful use of fixed anchors (including pitons, slings, and bolts) in what are now designated Wilderness areas since before the passing of the Wilderness Act in 1964. These stories from before Wilderness as we know it shows that climbers were thinking with careful judgment about the wilderness experience, and sparingly using fixed gear—if it was in fact crucial for the ascent or descent at all. Since then, recreation, including climbing, has been a major tenet of what the Wilderness Act aims to protect. The question is: how do fixed anchors fit into that commitment moving forward? And how do Wilderness climbing’s roots inform that future?

Check out the climbs below to get a sense of the roots of Wilderness climbing.


Check out this map, powered by onX, which features Mountain Project data in conjunction with Wilderness Area boundaries, to help visualize how climbing across the country is impacted by this discussion.


Take Action: Share Your Voice on the Proposed Wilderness Fixed Anchor Guidelines


From the 1963 American Alpine Journal. Photos by Tom Frost, courtesy of North American Climbing History Archive.

The Salathé Wall, Yosemite Valley

Designated Wilderness in 1984

3500 ft (1061 m), 35 pitches, VI 5.9 C2, Robbins-Pratt-Frost, 1961


One of  the longest routes on El Cap—and full of infamous wide cracks and ledges to bivvy on, The Salathé Wall is one of the iconic climbs in the world. The route has you balancing up the Free Blast, and shimmying up chimneys until you’re climbing the impressively steep headwall that makes everyone gape at El Cap. If you’re a badass, you can free it at .13b. But in 1961 Royal Robbins, Chuck Pratt, and Tom Frost were just excited to get up the thing, placing minimal fixed gear. 

From the 1963 American Alpine Journal. Photo by Tom Frost, courtesy of North American Climbing History Archive.

In Royal Robbins’ 1963 report for the American Alpine Journal (AAJ), in which he recounts the first ascent done in 1961 and the first continuous ascent done in 1962, Robbins grapples explicitly with the bolting choices he and his team made as first ascensionists. Reflecting on the first continuous ascent, Robbins writes: “Tom [Frost] skillfully led the difficult section of the blank area where we had placed thirteen bolts the previous year. The use of more bolts in this area had been originally avoided by some enterprising free climbing on two blank sections and some delicate and nerve-wracking piton work. It would take only a few bolts to turn this pitch, one of the most interesting on the route, into a ‘boring’ walk-up.” Robbins and his peers were invested in finding those moments of “enterprising free climbing,” where they had to get creative and grit their teeth. Throughout his career, Robbins would have a lot of ambivalence about bolts—Salathé is a perfect example of that careful balance.

Though not directly or explicitly linked with his stance on fixed gear, it’s notable that Royal’s account of the continuous ascent of Salathé is intertwined with soulful reminiscing about nature. Robbins and his team considered Yosemite a special kind of remote nature, well before El Cap got a Wilderness designation with a capital W. Robbins ended his Salathé report: ”We finished the climb in magnificent weather, surely the finest and most exhilaratingly beautiful Sierra day we had ever seen…All the high country was white with new snow and two or three inches had fallen along the rim of the Valley, on Half Dome, and on Clouds Rest. One could see for great distances and each peak was sharply etched against a dark blue sky. We were feeling spiritually very rich indeed as we hiked down through the grand Sierra forests to the Valley.” This experience of vastness—of feeling the smallness of humanity within the quietude of nature, and that such experiences are enriching to the soul—is at the heart of what the NPS and USFS are trying to preserve, and which climbers like Robbins and all those who have followed him up El Cap have deeply loved about these places. 

Layton Kor on the first ascent of The Diagonal, 1963. Photo from Kor’s book, Beyond the Vertical, photographer unknown.

The Diagonal, Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

Designated Wilderness in 1976

2000’ (606m), 8 pitches, V 5.9 A5, Kor-McCarthy-Bossier, 1963

The Diagonal is in some ways an odd route to include here, because although it was important at the time, and excellent tales have been told about this first ascent, this route is rarely climbed today. It has the distinction of half a star on Mountain Project, and is known for the boldness required—which is particularly important to note in an area that already favors the bold. But we’re including it here precisely because of the climb’s historic nature, and how the first ascensionists—the magic team of Layton Kor, Jim McCarthy, and Tex Bossier—have articulated their thoughts on fixed anchors. 

As a historic climb, The Diagonal contains multitudes. Layton Kor, who was the driving force behind the first ascent, was certainly known to be a singular kind of person. There was no one quite like him. In Climb!, his contemporaries describe this towering figure in awed terms: “Of his more forceful characteristics, those who knew Kor well during his climbing years say that he frequently exhibited the qualities of a man possessed. A driving inner tension gnawed at him. His way of escaping from this sensation was to be active in a way which totally occupied his mind and body. His climbs, pushed to the limit of the possible, served this function well.” When Kor legendarily quipped, staring up at the crux pitch on The Diagonal, that he wasn’t a married man, and perhaps he should take Jim McCarthy’s lead for that reason, behind the glint in his eye was that tension and drive. Kor did take the lead on the “horror pitch,” taking six and a half hours to complete it—and it’s still noted as one of Kor’s hardest leads in his career. After all, the team was trying for glory—attempting to find Colorado’s first grade VI, though it would turn out to be another grade V. It remains an iconic moment in climbing’s rich history of contemplating and pushing past our agreed upon limits. 

Bossier indicated, in Kor’s book Beyond the Vertical, that the boldness that would come to characterize the climb was due in part to an intentional philosophical stance that the team made about the restrained use of fixed gear. Bossier writes: “The two major ethical dilemmas of the day were expansion bolts, and siege vs. alpine style ascents. We had taken oaths that the first grade six in Colorado deserved our commitment to a classic ascent. Despite knowing that we would pass through bands of rotten rock, we planned not to degrade our attempt with unnecessary bolting or extensive bolting.”

This sense of committing to good ethics and terms of engagement with the landscape is the backbone of the American idea of Wilderness, and embedded in the Wilderness Act, which defines Wilderness as “untrammeled,” “primeval,” and “undeveloped” landscapes, in which humanity is just a visitor. Though Kor, McCarthy, and Bossier weren’t meditating on nature in those explicit terms, their ascent too is wrapped in high-minded reflection on immersion in natural landscapes. After their wet bivvy, nature brought about a brush with awe that is so often what we seek in great, vast, wild adventures: “Next morning, as light became perceptible, we were engulfed in a dramatic whirlwind of dancing clouds. Shafts of light shone vertically upwards from the depths of the Canyon, while other masses swirled and skipped in wave patterns. We sat on our perches awed as light beams and rainbows mingled with mist. They were below us. They were with us—we could reach out and touch them. The clouds died as the power of the sun burned through and we began to take stock.”

No doubt waking up to this kind of light show—their position in the midst of it only possible because of this unique terrain—was part of the transformative experience of this climb. Bossier’s reflections demonstrate again that just as climbers of this time period were grappling with the appropriate boundary for the responsible use of fixed anchors, they were likewise attuned to how the landscapes they were climbing in shaped their experience. 

Topo of D1, the first ascent of The Diamond, featured in the September 1960 issue of Trail and Timberline. AAC Library Collection.

D1, The Diamond, Rocky Mountain National Park

Designated Wilderness in 2009

1,010 ft (308 m), 8 pitches, V 5.7 A4, Kamps-Rearick, 1960

Though climbing lore often focuses on tales of breaking the rules and going against the grain, there has been a long history of climbers working within land agency regulations in order to gain sustainable access. The story of The Diamond of Longs Peak, one of the most sought-after walls in the country, is one such example. According to the recounting of the first ascent, published in the 1961 AAJ: “In 1953 a party organized by Dale Johnson of Boulder announced its intention of attempting an ascent of this wall, but was refused permission by the National Park. Since then the Diamond has been ‘off limits’ to climbers. Being thus restricted from the climbing activity going on elsewhere in the country, it gradually assumed the distinction of being the most famous unclimbed wall in the United States.” So when Robert Kamps and David Rearick received permission from RMNP to attempt to climb The Diamond in August of 1960, all eyes were on them. 

September 1960 issue of Trail and Timberline, featuring an image from the first ascent of The Diamond. Cover photo by Al Moldvay of The Denver Post. From the AAC Library Collection.

The draw of the Diamond was certainly a sense of ultimate challenge. The altitude and remoteness of this striking wall was a key part of the adventure. Today, D1 is often overlooked, with more accessible lines like The Casual Route and Pervertical Sanctuary getting the most mileage, and lines like Ariana getting the most attention at the 5.12 grade. However, Mountain Project whispers suggest that well-rounded Diamond climbers consider it the best route on the Diamond. So unlike Kor’s The Diagonal, it’s historic and good climbing. 

Rearick and Kamp’s three day ascent “was one more dent in the concept of the impossible.” Like many Diamond climbers even today, they battled the weather and a waterfall dripping on their belays and bivvy. But this encroachment of water seemed to be a reminder that though they may be conquering the wall, they were but a small creature in a wilderness that was ultimately untamable. Like so many other climbers recreating in such extreme natural environments, the ascent was inextricably linked to moments of sublime quiet. “The night was clear and we watched the shadows from the moon creep stealthily along the slope of Lady Washington below us and across the shimmering blackness of Chasm Lake. We both managed to doze for a few hours. Since the temperature stayed above freezing, the waterfall continued all night, occasionally splashing us. The altitude at this point was about 13,700 feet.”

 Rearick and Kamps placed 4 expansion bolts in total—by hand, of course, which continues to be a requirement for new or replaced bolts in Wilderness—when all other ways of securing a belay were exhausted. This method and their tools had been explicitly reviewed and approved by the National Park beforehand, as a condition of their permission to attempt this famous feature. This incredibly important ascent was just the beginning of a revolution in climbing, as Godfrey and Chelton recount: “the concept of the impossible was seized roughly by the scruff of the neck and shaken up so as to be unrecognizable.”

***


As these three first ascents demonstrate, the roots of Wilderness climbing is often tied up with philosophies of restraint in use of fixed gear, spiritual connection with nature, pushing the limits of the sport, and prioritizing boldness without being unsafe.

That was Then…This is Now…

Much of the discussion around fixed anchors in Wilderness within the climbing community has simplified and erroneously associated the concept of fixed anchors with grid bolting or sport climbing. Some people are kicking around the idea that the only climbing that should happen in Wilderness is the purest kind, like “back in the day”—suggesting that absolutely no fixed gear was used “back in the day.” The history of these iconic Wilderness climbs shows that this narrative is full of misunderstandings. Even when the best climbers of the day refused to “degrade” their ascents with unnecessary bolting or fixed gear, they did apply these tools when necessary for safety. Evidently, Wilderness climbing’s roots lie in a philosophy of responsible and restrained use of fixed anchors to facilitate meaningful experiences and inspire advocates of Wilderness. Now the question is, what is Wilderness climbing’s future? 

You can help decide. Share your thoughts on the proposed fixed anchor guidance from the NPS and USFS before January 30, 2024. 


Resources:

This article was only possible thanks to the depth of resources from the American Alpine Club Library and historic records from the American Alpine Journal. Want to delve into our extensive historic climbing archives and guidebook library? Check it out. 

“The Salathé Wall.” American Alpine Journal. 1963.

“Salathe Wall.” Mountain Project.

Beyond the Vertical by Layton Kor

“The Diagonal.” Mountain Project.

Climb! Rock Climbing in Colorado by Bob Godrey and Dudley Chelton

Royal Robbins: The American Climber by David Smart

The Black: A Comprehensive Climbing Guide to Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park by Vic Zeilman

“The First Ascent of the Diamond, the East Face of Longs Peak.” American Alpine Journal. 1961.

“D1” Mountain Project.

Fixed Anchors in Wilderness 101

YOUR TOPO TO THE MOST IMPORTANT CLIMBING POLICY ISSUES HEADING INTO 2024

Paul and Marni Robertson on “Moonlight Buttress” (5.12d), Zion National Park, Utah. Photo by AAC member Jeremiah Watt.

We know climbing policy can be complicated. That’s why we’re giving you the bite-sized answers you need about the key policy topic right now: fixed anchors in Wilderness. Dive in to get a concise understanding of the lay of the land: What is the PARC Act? What does the National Park Service and Forest Service have to say about fixed anchors and climbing? How does it relate to each other? What can climbers do to share their perspective on Wilderness climbing? We break it down and give you an opportunity to share your thoughts on fixed anchors in Wilderness Areas.


Click and scroll to explore…


The AAC and Nina Williams have been advocating for climbers in DC!

Hear from Nina Williams about what it was like to advocate for the climbing community, and what motivates her to take action and use her passion for climbing to make a difference.


Photo by AAC member Andrew Burr. Scott Willson on the “East Buttress” (5.10b) of El Capitan, Yosemite National Park, California.

TAKE ACTION: Share Your Voice on the Proposed Wilderness Fixed Anchor Guidelines

Photo by AAC member Andrew Burr. Scott Willson on the “East Buttress” (5.10b) of El Capitan, Yosemite National Park, California.

Climbers have been staunch defenders and careful stewards of our wild landscapes in national forests and national parks since before the Wilderness Act of 1964. At the American Alpine Club, we want to ensure climbers' voices are heard on this issue. Let the National Park Service (NPS) and United States Forest Service (USFS) know where you stand on the responsible use of fixed anchors in Wilderness by submitting your comments to both agencies before January 16, 2024.

What are the recent Forest Service and National Park Service climbing guidance proposals?

These two separate and distinct climbing guidance proposals inform how these agencies would manage climbing within their respective areas. These proposals include a novel interpretation of fixed climbing anchors as prohibited, which reverses over 60 years of precedent in Wilderness located in national park and national forests, respectively.

What might these proposals mean for climbers?

By reclassifying fixed anchors (including slings, bolts, pitons, and ice screws) as prohibited installations in Wilderness and national forests, existing and new fixed anchors would require analysis and approval by the local land managers. This shift has the potential to impact historic climbing routes in iconic areas, as well as stifle future route development and fixed anchor maintenance for safety.


Ready to speak up for Wilderness climbing? 

Below is a template to get you started on your NPS and USFS public comment. Please personalize with your own experience!

“As a climber, I want to ensure the safe and responsible use of fixed anchors in [Wilderness/national forests] remains available to the climbing community. I respect and advocate for the responsible use of Wilderness areas and believe that fixed anchors can be a component of a sustainable Wilderness experience. Please revise your climbing guidance to reflect the practice and precedent of the last 60+ years–that fixed anchors for climbing can be used, replaced, and maintained in designated [Wilderness/national forest] areas.”


Want to learn more about the NPS + USFS proposals, the PARC act, and AAC’s recent actions on Capitol Hill?

AAC and Yosemite National Park Sign General Agreement and Formalize Partnership 

Photo by AAC member Dawn Kish

By Byron Harvison, AAC Director of Policy and Gov’t Affairs

On August 2, 2023, the American Alpine Club entered into a General Agreement with the Yosemite National Park Service with the goal of supporting and promoting climbing in Yosemite Valley. This new formalized partnership is built upon a strong foundation of working together for decades—including on projects like the Yosemite Big Wall Permitting Program, Climber Coffee, sponsoring Yosemite Facelift, and the United in Yosemite festival. This opportunity will allow the AAC to assist the climbing management program at YNPS with public outreach, offer subject matter expertise on climbing stewardship matters, and identify other projects and services which could benefit the Park and climbing community—building on the long established and well-loved climbing iniatives that will continue to exist in the Park.

The AAC has a long history of supporting climbing within the Park and working with Park staff to educate climbers on issues related to climbing in the Park, identifying areas of historic significance, such as Camp 4, and promoting volunteerism. This General Agreement represents the AAC taking on a more formal role. At a time when visitorship of Yosemite National Park, and most National Parks, is at an all time high and park budgets are not being increased to meet the demand, relationships such as this can help bridge the gap.

Key among the intended responsibilities of the Club is the continued refinement and encouragement of responsible climbing practices and stewardship of the climbing areas and infrastructure supporting climbing activities within the Park. This could include working with the Park on impact mitigation projects, maintenance, and construction of climbing related structures or trails, and coordinating and informing volunteers to assist with those projects when appropriate. The Club will assist in the distribution of safety information, closures, and informing the community regarding Park-specific regulations. This work will also include educating climbers on the ins-and-outs of the recently  instituted Big Wall Permitting Program, which is a free self-registered permit that is required of all climbers overnighting on big wall climbs. Park staff will look for the AAC’s input on climbing-ethics related issues such as how to address gear-dumping, fixed lines, and storage on top of climbs for top-down attempts on the walls as opposed to embracing the ground-up ethos.

The AAC worked closely with the YNPS staff on the Agreement to outline the areas the Club can have the most impact on the climbing community and the Park, and coordinate work with other organizations such as Yosemite Conservancy and the Yosemite Climbing Association. We greatly appreciate the attention the climbing management program at YNPS has given this matter, and the enthusiastic support from Yosemite National Park. We are thoroughly excited about the opportunities this historic agreement makes possible!


Learn More from our Interview with Head Yosemite Climbing Ranger Jesse McGahey



For Media Enquiries

American Alpine Club Contact, Vice President of Marketing and Communications
Shane Johnson, [email protected] or 303-384-0110

Yosemite National Park Media Contact
Scott Gediman, [email protected] or (209)742-3519

freeze//thaw: Ice Climbing in a Changing Climate

Climbers are out there—we climb the highest peaks, roam deserts, and explore the woods for the most inspiring boulders. And the climbing community has been increasingly seeing anecdotal evidence of climate change impacting our climbing landscapes. But stories are one thing–scientific evidence, on the other hand, can be our topo for advocating for change.

In a first-of-its-kind study that was a finalist for the International Climbing and Mountaineering Federation (UIAA) Mountain Protection Award, a team from the American Alpine Club joined up with climate researchers from the University of New Hampshire and the University of Calgary to take a close look at the historical data on seasonal temperatures and ice season length in the Mount Washington Valley of New Hampshire, one of the premiere ice climbing destinations in the United States. With the context of this historical data, the team ultimately created a climate model to predict the length of ice climbing seasons in the future under moderate and high emission scenarios. The AAC team also interviewed dozens of guides in the region to gather qualitative data about how tumultuous climate impacts are impacting the guiding economy that is an integral part of these NH mountain communities. Ultimately—climate change is impacting climbing and the economies built around it. But we're ready to do something about it.

Learn about our climate research and how it's impacting climbing by diving into this film!


Ice Evolution: A Deeper Dive into the Climate Study

By Jimmy Voorhis and Micheal Wejchert

It’s our responsibility to ensure fat ice flows like this one remain on tomorrow’s tick lists. Photo courtesy of the AAC’s forthcoming film freeze//thaw, edited by Nate Ptacek

Like everywhere on Earth, the Mount Washington Valley faces fundamental shifts in weather patterns due to climate change. That’s why, in 2018, a team of researchers backed by the American Alpine Club began a research project to understand how climate change may physically impact ice climbs in the Mount Washington Valley, and how guides and climbers could adapt to these shifting conditions. Dive into this article to learn about this first-of-its-kind study, the current and predicted impacts to guiding livelihoods, and what we can do as climbers.


The Implications of Warmer Winters for Ice Climbing: A Case Study of the Mount Washington Valley, New Hampshire, USA

Ice climbing is important to the culture and economies of mountain communities worldwide. However, warming winters call into question the future of livelihoods associated with ice climbing. In response, the AAC conducted a case study that presents observed and simulated ice climbing conditions in the Mount Washington Valley, New Hampshire, USA, as well as local climbing guide's experiences of and responses to these changes. First, variability in ice conditions were evaluated by classifying and summarizing ice characteristics depicted in a 20-year collection of conditions reports (n = 372) including photos and written observations for a benchmark ice climb (Standard Route). Next, climate model ensembles were used to simulate probable changes in future ice season lengths according to intermediate and high climate forcing scenarios (i.e., RCP 4.5 & RCP 8.5). Finally, a survey and focus group were conducted with Mount Washington Valley ice climbing guides to examine observations and lived experiences of warming winters.

This study, which is the first formal assessment of the implications of warming winters for ice climbing, reveals significant effects of climate change for current and projected ice climbing conditions as well as marked, and often differentiated, vulnerability and adaptability to these changes amongst climbing guides. The unique mixed-methods approach used is applicable in other locales where climate change is impacting ice climbing activities and associated livelihoods.

You can read the full case study here.

Whose Risk Is It? How A Little-Known Statute Protects Climbing Access Across America

the DeCaLiBron; private landowners and 14ers

Taken from the DeCaLiBron, a Colorado link-up of four 14ers—Mt. Democrat, Mt. Cameron, Mt. Lincoln, and Mt. Bross. Lincoln and Bross are on private land. PC: Lucy Hooper

by Alex Derr

Climbing, bouldering, and mountaineering are inherently risky activities—we all know that. Loose rocks, extreme weather, and freak accidents are just a few of the threats we face when we head to the mountains. For many, that sense of uncertainty and adventure is part of what makes it so special. Risk is the price we pay to practice our passion. However, while climbers often discuss aspects of personal risk, including how to identify risk, manage, and mitigate it, we rarely discuss the flip side of the coin: personal liability. Every now and then, debates break out into the open over who is ultimately responsible for ensuring climber safety. Is it climbers themselves, the broader climbing community, or the managers and owners of the land they climb on?

Personal liability pertains to the ethical and legal obligations someone may have in the event of injury, damage, or loss while engaged in recreational activities such as climbing. If an individual is deemed liable for your injury, you have the legal right to sue for damages. This serves not only as a method for financial recovery but also as a deterrent against future negligence to ensure the safety of others. To fully understand this complex issue, it's helpful to envision liability and risk as two ends of a continuum related to recreational responsibility.

On one end, you have individuals who fully accept personal risk. These people assume complete responsibility for their own safety, attributing any accidents to either their own actions or natural phenomena. On the other end are those who believe that the onus of their safety largely falls on others. According to this perspective, climbers are entitled to be warned of, or protected from, any potential hazards while engaged in climbing activities. In cases where that isn’t possible, trails or crags should be closed if that is what is required to keep the public safe.

In reality, most climbers fall somewhere in the middle, leaning ever so slightly in the direction of personal risk. We appreciate that safety is ultimately our own responsibility, while acknowledging that in some cases, others may bear some responsibility for accidents and injuries. For example, few climbers would ever consider suing a landowner because they fell and were injured because a handhold broke or an anchor gave way. However, if a landowner purposefully damaged the anchors to try and deter climbing, most would consider them liable for injuries that result. 

Mt. Sherman, one of Colorado’s 14ers that is on private land. PC: Katie Sauter

Historically, personal liability has been more than a mere theoretical issue. In the 1960s, demand for recreation access started to grow as the population boomed and hiking, camping, climbing, and skiing surged in popularity. Public lands were filling up, so climbers and other groups sought out new wild places on private land and sought permission to access them. While landowners were often sympathetic, they faced significant legal hurdles that led many to refuse. At the time, the legal system used three categories to determine what duty of care a landowner owed visitors on their land. 

Trespassers (individuals without permission), had a very low duty of care. Landowners could only be sued if they intentionally harmed them. However, licensees (individuals with implicit permission) had a much higher standard, with landowners expected to warn them of dangerous conditions, mitigate hazards, and close the land if necessary to ensure safety. Lastly, invitees (individuals present as part of a commercial transaction) had the highest standard, as landowners had to proactively inspect their property to identify and remove hazards. 

Depending on the specific circumstances, climbers and hikers were usually classified as either invitees or licensees, leaving landowners open to significant lawsuits if they were injured or killed due to a landowner’s perceived negligence. A series of high profile lawsuits in multiple states created a chilling effect that made it nearly impossible to gain access to private areas for recreation in most parts of the country.   

private landowners and 14er access, liability

AAC grant recipients climbing Crestone Needle. One trailhead to access Crestone Needle is on private land.

To address the situation, the National Conference of State Legislatures crafted a model statute in 1965 called a recreational use statute (RUS). The original draft was relatively simple: in exchange for providing free public access on their land, landowners would receive strong legal protections, leaving them liable for injuries only when they willfully or maliciously fail to warn visitors of known dangerous hazards. Within a decade, all 50 states adopted a RUS to protect landowners, promote personal responsibility, and keep access open for outdoor recreation.

While all recreational use statutes are based on the first Model Act, they have been amended and added to many times over the decades in response to lawsuits, accidents, and changes in the way we recreate and enjoy the outdoors. For example, the first statutes adopted only protected private landowners, despite the fact that public lands were also at risk of major lawsuits. In 1979, an updated model act addressed this gap, with added clarification that recreational use statutes were intended to protect owners and managers of both private and public lands. While most states have adopted this change, there are still a few outliers.

Another significant difference across recreational use statutes are their exceptions. No RUS provides a blanket liability shield. Each lists a few situations where a landowner might still be found liable, in an effort to balance public access with public safety. In all 50 states, landowners are held responsible if they intentionally inflict harm—by setting traps, for example, or deliberately tampering with safety equipment. Additionally, most states leave landowners liable for injuries if they charge an access fee or run a commercial operation on their land. Beyond those conditions, there is widespread variation from state-to-state.

For example, Ohio’s recreational use statute protects landowners in almost every circumstance; they can only be sued if they injure someone purposefully and maliciously. On the other hand, 12 states leave landowners liable for willful and wanton activities or grossly negligent actions, and more than 20 states require landowners to warn visitors of any known dangerous conditions on their land. This creates a substantial burden, especially for large land holdings where there may be hundreds of known hazards, which must all be addressed to protect them from liability. In areas where climbing is popular, this can be an even greater lift, as installing warning signs on rocky terrain is both time-consuming and expensive.

The author on Mt. Sherman, one of the CO 14ers that is on private land.

Colorado offers a case in point. A 2018 Federal Court ruling held the U.S. Air Force Academy accountable for a bicyclist's severe injuries sustained on a known hazardous trail on their property. The court ordered the Academy to pay $7.8 million in damages. Following the ruling, four major peaks were closed to the public within a two-year period: Mount Lindsey, Mount Democrat, Mount Cameron, and Mount Lincoln. Though legal experts and the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association argued that this verdict was an outlier, the decision nevertheless prompted many landowners to close their lands to avoid potential lawsuits. Some peaks have temporarily reopened, thanks to a cooperative liability waiver system, but their long-term status remains in flux as advocacy groups like the American Alpine Club push for legislative revisions.

Culebra Peak, one of Colorado’s 14ers on private land. Photo courtesy of the American Alpine Club Library

Recreational use statutes can also affect our access to public lands. Flaws in a RUS can have major impacts on access to state parks and other lands, as demonstrated by the situation in Hawaii. In 1999, dozens of people were relaxing and swimming in a pool at Sacred Falls State Park when a rockslide came down the mountain above them. When the dust settled and first responders arrived, they found eight dead and more than thirty others wounded. Within a few months, several of the victims and their families filed a lawsuit against the state, eventually winning $8 million in a settlement agreement with the Attorney General.

Unlike other states, Hawaii’s legislature specified that public lands were not covered under the RUS, leaving them at a higher risk of liability than most state land managers. In the case of Sacred Falls, the state had installed ten different warning signs to let visitors know about the danger of falling rocks. The court found that the signs did not meet the standard of care owed to the visitors—and thus the state was liable for their injuries.

The lawsuit’s impacts were immediate and significant. In addition to Sacred Falls State Park, more than 20 different trails, parks, and wilderness areas were closed to the public. The state could no longer count on the protection of their RUS and decided the risk was too great to allow the public to access these areas. One of the biggest losses was the Mokulēʻia Wall, a 95-foot climbing crag famous for its multiple routes on the shores of Oahu. 

Hawaii’s climbing community did not stand idle. After two and a half years of negotiations and discussions with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, they formed the Hawaii Climbers Coalition and received a permit to resume climbing at Mokulēʻia, provided they handle visitor education, anchor inspection, and record-keeping to reduce the liability risks for the state. While these partnerships have been able to keep some areas open, many remain closed—and numerous attempts to address the situation through updates to the law have fizzled out due to opposition by the state’s Trial Lawyers Association.

As more people continue to embrace outdoor recreation, including climbing and mountaineering, we can expect recreational use statutes to become even more relevant. With public lands and parks filling up, and new permit and reservation systems launching each year, there has never been a greater need to work with private landowners to expand access to rural lands for outdoor adventure. There are many potential ways that states can improve these statutes, provide stronger safeguards and flexibility for landowners, and thereby incentivize access for the public.

Some states are providing landowners more flexibility to charge use or access fees. Most recreational use statutes only apply if access is granted to the public without charge. However, this leaves the landowner with no way to raise money to install warning signs, maintain trails, and clean up after visitors. It also limits their ability to purchase liability insurance or pay to run a waiver system—both of which significantly increase their protection. By allowing landowners to collect a small fee, with an annual and individual cap, states give them more ability to manage the impacts of access and provide more protection for themselves from lawsuits. 

Another place where states can make changes is the issue of attractive nuisances. This doctrine applies to hazards like swimming pools, mining ruins, or farming equipment that are obviously dangerous to adults, but are attractive to children who are unable to appreciate the danger they face. Typically, landowners remain liable for injuries caused by an attractive nuisance, unless they install a fence or other barriers to keep the area inaccessible. These nuisances are common along 14er trails and backpacking routes in the western mountains, and would require major investments and installations to fence off. To address this gap, Colorado amended its RUS in 2005 to shield landowners from attractive nuisance claims that stem from abandoned mining ruins, while leaving the doctrine alone in most other situations. In most other states, this liability risk remains open. 

An example of an attractive nuisance, on Mt. Sherman. This building collapsed in 2016-17. PC: Katie Sauter

Finally, many states have added specific clauses, exceptions, or amendments to address specific landowner concerns or complaints. For example, New Hampshire’s RUS includes a provision that states visitors must remain on designated trails and away from farming equipment or they are automatically classified as trespassers. This addressed concerns among farmers that people would wander and injure themselves while exploring old barns, fields, or irrigation ditches. In Rhode Island, the legislature added a clarification that municipalities were protected after a woman broke her leg walking in a city park and filed a lawsuit against its managers. 

No one wants to get injured while hiking, climbing, or mountaineering. Yet we all acknowledge that outdoor recreation is inherently dangerous: especially in rugged, mountainous terrain. At the same time, we appreciate that those with the ability to warn visitors about a dangerous hazard should do so if it is within their power. Recreational use statutes represent our best attempt to balance these competing priorities: personal risk and personal liability. Only time will tell how these statutes continue to evolve as the demand for recreation increases.

In the meantime, by continuing to work with landowners rather than against them, working hard to help manage and mitigate our own risk, and listening to and helping address their concerns whenever possible, we can all help keep these amazing places open to the public for generations to come. To learn more and support the work of the American Alpine Club and their partners to adapt Colorado’s statute and protect access to the state’s 14ers, visit www.fixCRUS.org.

 

About the Author

The author halfway up the Red Gully on Crestone Peak in September 2020.

Alex Derr is a climber, advocate, and environmental policy expert. As secretary of the Fix CRUS Coalition, he is working with more than 40 organizations to strengthen Colorado’s recreational use statute to secure public access to all of the state’s 14ers, trails, and wild areas on private lands. He is Founder and Director of The Next Summit, a blog focused on mountain safety and Leave No Trace in the American West. He is also the Director of Marketing & Communications at Visible Network Labs, a startup that uses social network analysis to map and strengthen cross-sector partnerships. He lives in Aurora, Colorado with his partner Jake and their dog Summit.