Bolted Anchors, Fixed Anchors, and the Sandia Mountains

Disestablishmentarianism:

–noun

1.

a person who favors the separation of church and state, esp. the withdrawal of special rights, status, and support granted an established church by a state; an advocate of disestablishing a state church.

–adjective

2.

of, pertaining to, or favoring the disestablishment of a state church.

 

I grew up using saddle wedges, T-tons, and hexes for protecting rock climbs when the hardest climbing was "5.10". My converse high tops left a lot to be desired on the slick granite slabs. At 13 years-old, I no formal climbing instruction, just a good friend's expertise. I learned from a friend who learned from a friend (a.k.a. school of hard knocks). It was an outsider's sport for those who didn't give a crap about themselves, but cared deeply for the romantic idea of freedom of the hills, or in my case, the mountains. Now, as a Certified Rock Climbing Guide, I realize an appreciation of all sides of the contentious issue of fixed anchors.

Yes, climbing has a lot of parallels with the above definition since many people get into climbing as a function of the feeling of freedom that can be had when climbing on some of the world greatest peaks, cliff faces, or other enchanting destinations. Climbers, like it or not, are a "user group." Land managers see all people who use the land as a "user group" and feel that anyone who passes on their lands must be a "managed user group."

It makes sense, to a point, but what if that user group doesn't want to be managed? What if the only way that the climbing user group is banded together is merely by the holds that we all share to surmount a peak, crank through a crux on a technical rock face, or simply the path that gets us to and from a climb?

The answer might look like the border of the USA and Mexico. Illegal aliens are, for the most part, a disbanded group and, well, illegal. If they get caught, they are booted out of these lands and banished. If they become a problem, they get prosecuted.

Currently, in New Mexico, some climbers got busted for using a power drill in a wilderness area. Unfortunately, the land manager is using this as a platform to springboard off of to make a statement about fixed anchors. The fact is, that these people power drilling has nothing to do with fixed anchors, but the land manager doesn't care. Why?

People who have diligently gone out with hand drills, a perfectly legal way to place a fixed anchor, not to mention the suffering of having to hand drill a bolt hole, are being persecuted. Why? Because there exists a FIXED ANCHOR. The interesting part is that the land manager may not necessarily care what style the anchor was placed in. It's just the fact that the bolt or fixed anchor is there and so a bias exists because of personal ideals of what the Wilderness Act means. Whether you hung it out 100' past your last piece on a ground-up new lead, and you are hanging on the sketchiest sky hook, have taken repeated falls, and sent the most gnarly line in the Wilderness, or if you rap bolted the line, they don't care. You still left an anchor.

There are those who would prefer to not see anyone climbing on any rock face anywhere. In fact, they wind up suing the land managers for "not protecting the wilderness," so their case is heard and their agenda met because there is little to defend climbing/climbers.

The thought that use of a hand drill significantly reduces bolt placement over a power drill may not be accurate. In fact, I have placed 17 bolts in a day with a hand drill. It's not fun, but the bolts will go in, its just a matter of time. Unfortunately, my hand drilled holes are not as true and not as deep as if I had placed the bolt by power drill. That means the bolt isn't as strong. So I guess if it pops out on you, then you will be having a true wilderness experience !

What's really funny, is that 99.9999999% of all the bolts placed are not visible to not only other user groups, but also to other climbers. You have to know what you're looking for to see a bolt unless it hasn't been camouflaged appropriately. My guess is that most hikers who go up the La Luz Trail (over 1,000,000 people served) cannot see a bolt on the face of a rock, but that would be a good research study. Another good study would be to see what impact bolts have on the environment. My guess, is that it may be beneficial to the environment since people aren't slinging oaks together, walking on the grasses on a ledge, or going near a nest. So, as much as I enjoy crack climbing, the best rock and best rock climbing, is generally on faces otherwise unprotectable without bolts. The climbing is not only better, but safer with cleaner falls.

Are the Sandias sick ?
I would argue that the Sandia Mountains are indeed ill. Over the last five years (since 2005) we have witnessed a massive bark beetle infestation as well as other tree killing infestations (Pino Canyon) that have caused widespread death of trees not only in the foothills, but also on the cliff faces. This in turn leads to other micro-clime degradation of shrubs and grasses. All of these natural organic organisms had root systems. Now that the micro environment is withering away, there is created a potential space where the root system was. That potential space is then filled with relatively more water each year that undergoes freeze-thaw throughout the winters, therefore widening the cracks between rocks as the ice expands and contracts. Water then seeps more and more freely through the potential spaces, and an aggressive erosive pattern ensues. Subsequently, I believe that this is what is leading to fascia exfoliation, a snazzy term for "rotting rock escarpment." Said blocks may be more able than ever to follow me down in the case of a fall, but more likely, unwary people near cliff edges are more prone to dislodge one of the blocks thereby losing their footing and falling off the cliff.

I bet you wish you were clipped into a bolt now. I know some of my friends who I have dragged out of the Sandias over the years on rescue missions would have agreed, posthumously, of course.

Yes, climbs that have usually been more solid are undergoing this process. I'm not arguing that all climbs should be bolted. Rather, I believe that climbing is still in the evolutionary process and needs to be regarded as such. Society is different than it was 30 , 20, or even 10 years ago. Most of the young people climbing (especially hard climbers) do not understand the nuances of traditional climbing or merely do not wish to use that method. My guess is that there are far more gym rats and sport climbers than there are hard core traditionalists.

Every winter for the past 4 years I have competed in the UIAA International World Mixed Rock and Ice Competition circuit throughout Europe. I witnessed "the best ice climbers in the world" competing on a fabricated stage with no real ice or ice that they had to protect. In fact, most of the best competitors had never even climbed a real waterfall ice pitch before. They were just good at performing circus tricks...and they were really good at it. Should we protect them from the world? No, but we need to be thinking proactively for the future of climbing as a sport.

In a discussion I had with a good friend recently, the analogy was made: "these guys getting caught power drilling was like someone speeding and getting caught. They should pay their debt to society and move on. Closing down a highway because someone gets caught speeding is ludicrous. I don't think the land managers will close the highway, but I think they are going to only allow tricycles and Big Wheels, which could effectively hobble climbing." Perhaps they won't chop the routes that presently exist, but they may not allow new roads to be built or maintained...also ludicrous...or just outright ban climbing altogether (Crystal Cave, NM).

So, you ask what my solution is? Well, forming a Department of Transportation for our crags may be an answer, but then again, its hard to herd cats. Really, the land managers should understand that climbers do a good job at taking care of climbing. We make it safe, enjoyable, and we are good stewards of the great places we love to visit and climb. I think that they should worry about climbers when there's too many. When is that ? When there's lines to get on a climb and when people have to get an "alpine start" to do a trade route like Mountain Momma, Aviary Ort, or the Southwest Ridge of the Needle in the Sandias, which there is no line starting anytime soon.

I really hate these signs, but it's the "right time".

I don't mean to sound cynical, or maybe I do, but I am a proponent that climbing should be left as a frontier for exploration for those who wish to pursue it in whatever form they see fit. Sometimes just pondering about a first ascent, watching it on t.v. per say, isn't as good as actually doing it. This is part of the human experience that should not be taken away from the people, fixed anchor or not. Maybe it wasn't sporty to sail to America in a clipper ship since a row boat would have been more of a challenge.

Some people say "smoke 'em if you got 'em" and others are more conservative. Options are...well...varied. I've done my share of fixed anchor placement, and replacement. I know, anecdotally, that since more fixed anchors have been placed in this wilderness, that there is far less morbidity and mortality in my backyard than before. Since I get to be one of the search and rescue "janitors" of the Sandias, I know this to be true. It remains interesting to me that people are willing to climb a route and clip the bolts, but somehow their ethic drives them to have to speak out against bolts. Am I missing something here? I'll listen to the anti-bolting gripe when they stop clipping, when the bodies stop hitting the ground, and when when climbing has enough inherent risk without being too risky but high on the fun factor. There needs to be a good balance.

 Maybe there should be a way to pay someone to manage climbing (i.e., establish new routes, make suspect routes safer, be the interface between the climbing community and the land manager) and use climbing as a reason to visit the Sandias. Is this the separation of church and state, or is the the joining? What page are you on?