UKC

On account of being busy, ill and normally being able to rely on this parish to have discussed issues like this in great length; can anyone sum up the bolting thing going on in the US at the moment?

What bolting thing?

A lot of the climbing there is on National Park Service (NPS) or U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land.

Wilderness areas are specially designated and have special rules.  The most obvious one being that bolts cannot be drilled with tools, only by hand.  These, and other places, also commonly have rules that each individual bolt must be approved to avoid the proliferation of "grid bolting" that is common when bolting is not kept in check.

Fast forward to the topic.  In an attempt to manage "bolting" on those lands an overly loose wording has been put into the proposal that (the technical wording) makes "fixed anchors" synonymous with "installations".

Fixed anchors - the intent of the control - is things like bolts.  Wise to regulate, even if one disagrees on the amount of regulation.

Installations are not.  They are things like slung trees, stuck stoppers, and anything a climber might leave behind to bail off.

With that, the intent to regulate people drilling bolts means it is effectively impossible, unless approved in advance, to go climbing as you might get a stopper stuck in the rock, or leave behind a bail anchor.

More detail at https://www.accessfund.org/action-alerts/stop-the-bolt-prohibition but that hopefully sums up at least the first chapter of the saga.

Counter intuitively, Ice screws are also defined as fixed anchors.

Americans are so weird, on one hand its the home of libertarianism and the land of the free and on the other they frickin lurrrve rules.

If you have time to watch a video, this covers it well:

https://youtu.be/ksHwibLzI_w?si=dEn-9eqrNUwgv9-P

An ice screw left behind counts as an installation. Anything left behind in a belay or abseil station counts as an installation.

Presumably the ice screw or abalakov thread is transformed into litter when the ice melts.

The American reaction to this does appear slightly over the top in some regards and seems to come from a position that fixed belays are obligatory for rock climbing.

If you have time, it was covered quite thoroughly on the Runout podcast #118 recently. It was the first I'd heard of it. 

As a Brit who has lived and worked in many parts of the world, I would say the Brits are pretty weird!

There's an old saw - not exactly true, but with enough of it to hold in many cases - that Americans think they're free because their laws tell them what they can do.  British people think they're free because their laws tell them what they cannot.  This may in turn explain your observation about Americans, and something of the nature of the British.

T.

Americans tend to equate freedom with choice, even if the choices are restricted.

We tend to equate freedom with being unrestricted.

Like choosing between Trump and Biden!

Which is like choosing between a rock and a hard place!

More like a choice between a rusty old peg and a rotten piece of tat.....

The authorities got wind of bolt placing/chopping wars going on in their parks and decided to take control by stretching pretty thinly the scope of laws on "installations" in parks. The climbers Access Fund are resisting the authorities' new policy, fearing it will effectively shut down new climbing development and the maintenance of existing fixed gear (mostly bolts).

What they really love most is suing each other. Rules make that possible.

We can hardly talk. Americans come to the UK to sue.

More like choosing between a vomiting fulmar and a pile of rotting gizzards.

But only for libel! That's hard in the US because of the first amendment.

That's new to me. I've only heard it in relation to the Germans. "In Germany everything is forbidden unless it is expressly permitted. In Britain everything is permitted unless it is expressly forbidden."

Thats not the only reason..... it's partly as they are judge led (where the US may be jury led) and because costs can be recovered.  There are loads of cases outside libel cases, especially on commercial lititigation. It's a major UK export business.

Sure, although a bit different though? I know a lot international contracts included using the UK for arbitration or litigation over (possible) breaches of the contract. I remember hearing about how many Sharia compliant contracts used for business between Muslim countries and companies still specify London as the place where problems are adjudicated. Like you say, its big business for UK law firms I guess!

There's an interesting statement from one of the groups pushing to ban bolting here:

https://wildernesswatch.org/rock-climbing-act-will-weaken-the-wilderness-ac...

It kind of boils down to this:

"There is a long list of user groups all vying for a piece of the Wilderness pie—from mountain bikers (who have already pushed legislation to allow bikes in Wilderness), to trail race directors, commercial filmmakers, motorboat users, airplane pilots, and much more."

They think that actively (rather than passively) allowing bolting sets a precedent for other wilderness users to do what they want which seems like quite an extreme take

I think it's to do with the differences between a Republic, where the individual is supreme and has inalienable rights, and a Democracy, where the state is supreme. 

As opposed to a Democratic Republic, in which all rights are often determined by a power-crazed despot!

Yes, or is that the other way round? 🤣

Hard to explain this apparently deep rooted attitude in German culture but referencing democracy, given that Germany was pretty late to democratise and had a famously shaky start with it all. 

Wait till you see a Republican Democracy! Oh, wait...

More like the rusty peg and throwing yourself off