Download full PDF - International Journal of Wilderness

on the committee. In addition, the
author of the Negotiated Rulemaking
Act, Philip Harter, was selected as a
neutral mediator of the process.
Issues and
Outcomes of the Process
The central topics during the negotiated
rulemaking were the interpretations
of Sections 2(c) and 4(c) of TWA.
Section 2(c) defines wilderness as being
“without permanent improvements,”
while Section 4(c) states that
“there shall be no temporary road, no
use of motor vehicles, motorized
equipment or motorboats, no landing
of aircraft, no other form of mechanical
transport, and no structure or installation
within any such area.”
Harter (2000, p. 2) states that the confusion
in interpreting the term installations
stems from the fact that “the
language of the Act is unmistakably
of the Sixties, as indeed is its vision
… it is the only natural resource law
with a soul.”
Opponents of the ban argued that
the anchors left by climbers are comparable
to materials left by many
other visitor groups (see Figure 2).
They stated that hunters leave behind
thousands of bullets, cartridges, and
shotgun shells, while anglers lose
hooks, lures, flies, and sinkers. Contending
that the authors of TWA
never intended for climbing anchors
to be equated with motorized vehicles
and equipment, powerboats, and aircraft,
opponents argued that to define
these devices as installations
unfairly targeted climbers and would
eliminate the activity altogether. For
example, opponents pointed out that
outfitters in the Frank Church-River
of No Return Wilderness were permitted
to install permanent structures
to support their operations (see Wilderness
Watch v. Robertson, 92-0740,
1993). However, proponents countered
that in Wilderness Watch v.
Robertson, the court had ruled that
permanent structures, including water
systems and tent frames, were in
direct conflict with the minimum requirements
established within TWA
(Nickas 1998).
Opponents also argued that despite
the specific reference to the term in-
Figure 2—The Lone Peak Wilderness, where fixed anchors have been used for decades to ascend the 700-foot
face. Photo courstesy of Christopher Jones.
18 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2002 • VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3
stallation, in “six thousand pages of
testimony, nowhere was climbing ever
alluded to in other than wholly permissible
terms” (American Alpine
Club 2002b, p. 1). Furthermore, wilderness
climbing was cited in several
federally commissioned reports and in
congressional testimony as an appropriate
wilderness activity consistent
with the values of wilderness (Athearn
and Hill in press; Keyser 1949). Wilderness
Watch responded by stating
that, although climbing may be an
appropriate use of wilderness, climbers
should be forced to ascend mountains
as if they were the first climbers
to attempt them (Nickas 1998).
Beyond the interpretation of TWA,
several other issues surfaced during
the rulemaking process. USFS representatives
argued that they are opposed
not to climbing, but to the
biophysical and visual impacts of anchors
that could weather cliff faces
(Baker 1999). Yet, there is a lack of
scientific evidence to support these
claims. Proponents of the ban stated
that, historically, bolts were placed
relatively infrequently and are not
justifiable at the level practiced by
modern sport climbers. Opponents
responded by presenting archival evidence
that fixed anchors and climbing
were a historical and symbolic use
of wilderness.
The topic of economic impacts
was discussed as a double-edged
sword. Opponents to the ban argued
that a fixed-anchor ban would displace
far too many climbers, creating
substantial economic impacts on
local economies and corporations
benefiting from wilderness. Several
studies conducted in Red Rocks,
Nevada, were submitted in support
of this argument (Espey et al. 1998;
Vossler et al. 1997). Cavlovic et al.
(2000) found that economic losses to
climbers in national forest wilderness