The U.S. National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) are currently considering two regulatory proposals that could fundamentally change the way rock climbing is managed.
It’s crucial that climbers make their presence known and communicate their position clearly, helping non-climbing officials better understand what we do and how we do it—especially in the context of climbing in wilderness areas.
Under the NPS and USFS proposals, permanent anchors would be prohibited in officially designated wilderness areas, and every existing anchor would be subject to review. In addition to submitting formal applications to replace old anchors or install new ones, climbers would have to justify the need for all permanent anchors on existing routes, including iconic lines like The Nose on El Capitan in Yosemite or routes on the Diamond Face of Longs Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park. This represents a 180-degree turn in the interpretation of the 1964 Wilderness Act as it applies to climbing, as the new proposals for the first time classify permanent anchors as “installations,” which are expressly prohibited by law without a special permit. Previously, installations were defined as infrastructure objects such as bridges or fences. However, if either of these proposals is adopted, even small pieces of climbing equipment could be deemed prohibited installations.
If permanent installations are deemed prohibited installations, climbers will have to overcome numerous bureaucratic hurdles for each abandoned piece of equipment: submitting a formal proposal specifying the exact location and necessity of the installation, and then undergoing a multi-stage Minimum Requirement Analysis (MRA) process. Climbers, cavers, and canyoneers—anyone who has ever left anchors—will be required, in Keith’s words, to “look into a crystal ball,” anticipating in advance where a protection point will be needed and submitting a request for review, after which each anchor element will be assessed under the MRA.
Such procedures, Keith noted, would be “highly subjective and carried out by area managers who may not even be involved in climbing.”
The wording of the proposals suggests that administrators will ask questions: How is this route different from the one next to it? What is the minimum number of protection points required for an “acceptable” climbing experience? If there’s only one route to the top of the cliff, why are there multiple routes leading to the same place?
According to Keith, the NPS and USFS proposals represent a one-size-fits-all approach. For decades, rock climbing was regulated based on the specifics of specific areas—raptor nesting sites, archaeological sites, or other sensitive natural resources—but was generally considered a legal and acceptable activity. The new approach would do the opposite: permanent rock climbing anchors would be treated as inherently prohibited.
Since 2013, NPS Regulation 41 has provided guidance on regulating rock climbing in national parks and wilderness areas, including prohibiting the use of power tools. The document explicitly states that “NPS recognizes rock climbing as a legal and appropriate use of wilderness areas.” However, this is not law. That is why it is so important to encourage Congress to pass such legislation like the PARC Act or AORA.
During the webinar, Murdock quoted a statement from a column by former U.S. Senator Mark Udall (D-Colo.) published last November on The Hill.com. Udall wrote:
As the primary sponsor of the Rocky Mountain National Park Wilderness Establishment Act and the Indian Peaks Wilderness Expansion Act, I want to be absolutely clear: nothing in these laws was intended to restrict sustainable and appropriate climbing practices or prohibit the reasonable and opportunistic placement of permanent belay anchors, many of which existed before the laws were passed. I have used such anchors myself, climbing in these areas, and I want future generations of climbers to be able to safely experience deep adventures and become protectors of wilderness.
Nina Williams emphasized that building trust between climbers and government agencies is essential for moving forward. When submitting comments, it is important to be sincere and proceed from the best intentions, rather than reacting with anger.
“Historically, there has been tension between climbers and the administration,” she said. “But now it is not so much a standoff as an attempt by two sides to achieve goals that are similar in values, but different in implementation and level of mutual trust.”
Keith noted, That the Access Fund’s efforts are not an attempt to “wrest an exemption for a new, previously prohibited activity.”
“The key point is that decisions related to safety in the here and now must remain with the climbers themselves,” he said. “We must ensure that they have the right to act and that they are not demotivated to protect themselves. This does not mean abusing emergency exemptions, but it does mean that climbers must have the discretion and permission to install or replace protection for the sake of safety.”
When submitting comments through the NPS and USFS portals, Keith recommended sharing personal stories. “Tell us how these new rules will impact your experience,” he said. This, he said, will make your comments unique and increase the likelihood that agencies will take them seriously.
Text author: Derek Frantz (Editor-in-Chief Alpinist)
Source: alpinist.com