Download full PDF - International Journal of Wilderness

exceeds $100 million annually, and,
thus, the USFS proposal to ban anchors
is indicative of a “major regulatory
change” requiring a full
benefit-cost analysis. However, proponents
argued that since REI promoted
the proposed rider language
in the appropriations bill, big business
was controlling wilderness
policy. Proponents of the ban also
claimed that the composition of the
committee contained a majority that
promoted the business of climbing.
The committee decided that the
best way to arrive at consensus was to
focus on the specific issue of how fixed
anchors would be regulated. Five alternatives
were developed by the committee:
(1) allow the placement of
three bolts for a descent with permit,
(2) allow up to eight bolts to be placed
on routes that would not accept removable
protection and two bolts per
route where removable protection was
available (both excluding rappel/belay
stations, which require two anchors),
(3) require that new anchors cannot
be placed, but allow anchors to be replaced
on existing routes with the
agency left to decide whether to remove
an existing route, (4) allow additional
anchors under strict
regulations and a select number of existing
anchors would be removed, and
(5) prohibit a “net gain” of anchors in
order to encourage dispersal and traditional
climbing (Deyerberg 2000).
Although consensus could not be
reached on the above alternatives,
eventually, a possible compromise
began to emerge: (1) there will be
no new anchors unless climbers can
demonstrate that they are in some
way needed, (2) a higher burden of
proof for areas that have not historically
been used for climbing will be
needed to justify permits to place
anchors, (3) there should be a distinction
in regulations between an-
chors used to go up and rappel down,
(4) anchors should be allowed to be
placed in emergencies without a permit,
and (5) guidelines would be
implemented on a wilderness-by-wilderness
basis but not seek to control
all placements in a single, national
prescription (Deyerberg 2000).
After a year of meetings, and despite
a strong effort to gain acceptance
of the above, a consensus could not
be reached. Three of the 23 stakeholders
would not agree with the
compromise. Discussion notes during
the negotiated rulemaking stated that
the groups who refused consensus
might be looking toward the opportunity
to hear their case in Congress—an
opportunity that would be
negated if consensus were reached.
Two of the holdout stakeholders did
not move from the position that the
law prohibits all fixed anchors
(Deyerberg 2000).
At this stage of the debate, according
to the Negotiated Rulemaking
Act, the final rulemaking falls back
upon USFS authority. The original
systemwide rule remains revoked, but
bans are sustained in the Sawtooth
and Granite Mountain Wilderness
Areas. The USFS stated that the
agency will rewrite the systemwide
rule and went as far as developing a
draft rule.
Implications for Managers
and Policy Makers
Several implications can be drawn
from the failure of the negotiated
rulemaking. The process was revealed
to be a less than effective means of
resolving national-level issues in
which the interpretation of TWA is
at stake. This lack of resolution may
continue to be the outcome of future
debates because the act itself sets the
stage for conflict between managing
wilderness in a pristine condition and
visitor behavior, which often leaves
wilderness in conditions below the
standards of TWA (Athearn and Hill
in press).
We suggest that the agencies try
again, and all four federal wilderness
managing agencies should be involved.
The rulemaking process
should be modified so as to be more
porous to historical and scientific
(biological and social) evidence, and
to public input. The use of evidence
should be accompanied by the use
of a neutral fact finder to rule on the
facts. Such questions of fact might
relate to the historical precedent of
fixed anchors, congressional intent,
and the extent of visual and ecological
impacts. Without consideration
of such evidence and a legal ruling
on the facts, to demand that consensus
be reached in a highly ideological
and subjective case is unrealistic.
The requirement of consensus will
be extremely difficult to achieve, but
may be more tractable by connecting
the process to public input and the
neutral fact finder.
In conclusion, both opponents
and proponents of the ban raise important
questions regarding the use
and protection of wilderness. A total
ban of all fixed anchors would
clearly have a major impact on the
majority of wilderness climbers, a
visitor group that has traditionally
supported wilderness values and
has been a strong voice in the wilderness
movement. Yet, allowing
unchecked fixed-anchor installation
represents a step backward in the
century-old effort to protect wilderness
values. The final decision will be
somewhere in between. Time will
tell whether that middle point is determined
by courts, Congress, or
the groups with a direct interest in
the outcome.
International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2002 • VOLUME 8, NUMBER 3 19