Latest / The Wild Idea / Fault Lines: Exploring Wilderness Climbing Management

Transcript

Fault Lines: Exploring Wilderness Climbing Management · The Wild Idea

• 0:00
  The following is a production of Wild Idea Media.
• 0:03
  Welcome to our continuing conversations for a wild and changing world, what we call the Wild Idea Podcast. Today starts a special series we're gonna call Fault Lines, exploring issues, like so many issues when it comes to wildland protections that kind of have nuance and kind of have,
• 0:21
  you know, interesting, um, perspectives that come from a variety of directions. And, uh, really excited about this one today, Anders, and I'm excited about this whole series and why we kind of felt it was important to do this.
• 0:33
  Oh, hi, Bill. Yeah, I'm really excited too. Um, you know, I think we're far enough along in the history of wilderness protection that maybe it seems like a settled idea, but wilderness was never really a settled idea. It was never really one idea. It's 100 competing ones, right? All sort of fighting for the same dirt. And so you and I are gonna be having some conversations in the next month about, you know, fixed anchors in wilderness and chainsaws in wilderness. Doing something a little different, right? A run of episodes that are sort of focused on that creative tension inside wilderness management. You know, not, not the easy stuff, but the real
• 1:12
  friction. And I, I would just say, you know, I hope you'll say more about how you're approaching the work, but for me, I'm not really here to necessarily resolve those tensions. I don't know that we can. Um, those tensions are sort of the point, right? And as long as they are the point,
• 1:29
  uh, for me, it sort of means that, that wilderness is still alive, right? [laughs] It's not finished. But all the same, there are some important baselines to set now because whatever we're deciding this year and the coming years is, is gonna be what we've got for the future. So I'm looking forward to this whole arc. I'm ready to dig in.
• 1:46
  Yeah. So Fault Lines is a product of not just that we're curious, but there's a lot going on specifically right now on these issues. Like today's episode where we're gonna talk to Eric Murdock from the Access Fund about the issue of fixed anchors and their appropriateness in wilderness. As you already mentioned, Anders, we're gonna talk about chainsaws in wilderness. That's a real time issue swirling around wilderness. Uh, outside the wilderness boundaries, but still in the realm of wildlands is we're gonna be talking about travel management. The administration is sort of completely changing how we may approach authorizing off-road vehicle use in wildlands. We're gonna be tackling a lot of really interesting issues with this Fault Lines series. We hope you enjoy it. We're excited to bring you this conversation. You're gonna hear a very specific call to action from our guest, Eric Murdock, at the end of this. So, uh, if you have an opinion on this issue, you can't just sit there and stew on it. You can act on it, and we hope that you will. You will hear Eric call that out. So, so if it's all right with you, Anders, let's get on with the conversation with Eric, and let's, uh, let's, let's expose these fault lines.
• 2:51
  Roll that beautiful bean footage.
• 2:53
  Here's our conversation with Eric Murdock. So Eric, I wanna welcome you to the Wild Idea Podcast. Thanks for joining us, uh, for this very special issue and a deep dive into a r- I think a really important and really critical issue for us to continue to, to, uh, figure out how we all sort of see this playing out in the long haul. But l- let me start here, Eric. How did this project, this issue of resolving fixed anchors in, in wilderness, and how did that come into your worldview and become sort of your work to do? And then also tell our audience a little bit about who the Access Fund is and, and, uh, sort of what the, what the role of the Access Fund is within the climbing community. It'd be great to hear that.
• 3:32
  Thanks for having me. It's good to see you guys. Well, let me start with the second question. That's the easier one. So Access Fund is actually 35 years old this year.
• 3:43
  Access Fund is a national climbing advocacy organization. The mission is to protect climbing access and to conserve liming- climbing landscapes. Um, and the way we do that is with three different programs. We have a stewardship and education program, and that program does trail work and erosion control. Those are our conservation teams. They travel around the country and fix up public lands. And then we also have climber stewards, which are like almost like interp rangers that we put in different parts of the country. Right w- right now we've got six of those all across the country from New River Gorge in West Virginia, uh, Indian Creek in, in, in Utah, Red Rock, Nevada,
• 4:24
  Red River Gorge in Kentucky, and, and, and, and in Washington State around the Methow and, and the Enchantments. Um, and then we also have a policy and government affairs program, and that's what I led for a while until I became the deputy director kind of managing all the programs. And then our third program is our land trust. So we're also an accredited land trust. So we can buy land, hold land, get conservation easements, and we buy lands and open them up to the public and, and conserve them for future generations. So that's what the Access Fund does.
• 4:54
  We were started actually by a civil rights attorney, um, way back in the early '90s, and that's kind of the good segue into your question about fixed anchors.
• 5:03
  Fixed anchors have been a question on public lands since the '80s, you know, and there's a long history of, of, of people contemplating what are these things and how do they fit within wilderness? Um, way back in the, in the mid to late '80s, some folks, uh, a photographer actually recognized some fixed anchors down in the Superstition Wilderness down in, in, in southern Arizona, just east of Phoenix. Um, I actually went to, went to, uh, got a master's in, in, at Arizona State University at the time. And so I was, I was actually there and I would travel to the Superstitions a lot. And then later I, I got my PhD at, at University of Arizona. So I spent a lot of time like kind of where that issue started. But the Forest Service tried to understand the issue. They initiated a negotiated rulemaking in 1999 and 2000 to, to, to, to try to understand the issue. Um, there's been a lot of debate about how to manage climbing over the years. Um, the four agencies that manage cl- that, that manage wilderness all have climbing, so the Fish and Wildlife Service, um, the BLM, the Park Service, and the Forest Service all have climbing in wilderness. They all have different perspectives. The way I got involved in this issue 26 years ago, 27 years ago, I was, I was-- I've been working on America's public lands for, I don't know, 35 years. Um, back in the early '90s, I was working as an exploration geologist, and then when, uh, the commodity market tanked, I was looking for things to do, and I took a job with the Bureau of Land Management in Winnemucca, Nevada. Um, and I started to work for the BLM, and that's where I met a, uh, a recreation manager. I didn't even know that was a thing. And I started to learn about recreation management. It started becoming really interesting because it was in my interest to sort of meld social science and physical science, and it was an intriguing thing. And I, and I, I enrolled in a, in a doctoral program, and it was right when that negotiated rulemaking I just mentioned was going on in the Forest Service. And, um, I thought, "Man, this would be a great project." I'd already been climbing. I started climbing when I was about 18 years old in the, in the late '80s, and so I knew about climbing, but I never, never considered it as a, as a career option as far as policy. I, and I wasn't good enough to be a professional climber. But, um, but basically I started-- I, I proposed a project for my doctoral research, and I proposed to sort of try to understand fixed anchors. Um, I was involved in sort of like early, um, artificial intelligence modeling to understand, um, how policy, um, can affect visitor flow patterns in wilderness, and I was working with a group at the University of Arizona on that issue. Um, and I proposed to do this project on Forest Service lands and had a big doctoral project all outlined, and I got a call one day from Joshua Tree National Park. It was the, the, um, one of the, uh, law enforcement rangers at Joshua Tree National Park, and he said, "Hey, you don't know me, but we need your help. We, we, we, we saw that you're doing this project." It was-- I, I got a grant somewhere, and it was announced, and somehow this guy, Pat Sudduth, saw that I got this grant, and he said, "Listen, we need to resolve this problem at Joshu- at Joshua Tree. We need the-- your research project." And I was like, "All right. Well, I'm, I'm, I'm about to get started in Coconino National Forest and Tonto National Forest and some of these other forests down in, uh, in Arizona." And he said, "Listen, we need your project. We'll fund it. We'll, we'll hire you as a, as a, as a Park Service social scientist, but there's one thing. You gotta start next week." And, um, I, um... I was like, "Ah, I can't do that." And then I realized when something like this happens, you say yes. I moved to Joshua Tree the next week, and I started modeling. Um, I started collecting data. Um, I started doing a, a, an inv- an inventory of the resource. I started modeling how people were moving through the wilderness. I started to understand, um, destination choice and understand how fixed anchors played into destination choice and the way people were moving through these landscapes. Started to model different types of wilderness, um, policies according to the, you know, the social models that we were building. And it took about two or three years of field work, and it took me way too long to finish my dissertation, but that's how I got involved in this. And, um, and then, you know, after doing social science for a while, um, ten, 15 years later, I ended up working for the Access Fund and realizing that a really good combination was to combine, like, research with advocacy because I realized if you just write a dissertation, it just ends up being a doorstop. And to make, you know, things change, you have to be able to, um, familiarize with the, with the political process and government affairs and, and that was-- that's, that's the highlights. I mean, between then, between the original doctoral research and, and the Access Fund, I worked for the Forest Service as a wildering- wi- wilderness monitoring specialist. I worked for NOAA modeling, uh, recreational fishing, um, the BLM, and the Park Service, so I got some idea as to, um, how these agencies' cultures worked. But, uh, that's, that's the general story of how I got involved in this.
• 10:08
  Eric, it's so good to have you on. I know that, that like Bill and I, you come to wilderness conservation and, and stewardship from a big tent view, right? That the wilderness ethic is broad enough to hold a lot of different constituencies under it, uh, recreation included, climbers included. And, um, you've done such great work at Access Fund. I know, um, that y'all spent the last few years, um, pushing hard for climbing to be recognized as compatible with wilderness character, not in tension with it or maybe in creative tension with it might be a better way to say it. So I'm curious if you can explain to folks, like, how you see climbing's relationship to wilderness as a conservation tool. You know, is it a... Are, are climbers a constituency that strengthen the case for protecting wild lands, or is the tension there maybe bigger than I think and, and my big tent framing here is, is glossing it over a little? How, how do you view it?
• 11:05
  Well, I certainly wasn't the first person to work on, you know, climbing in wilderness. Like I said, Access Fund is 35 years old, and, and climbing has been acknowledged as a legitimate recreational activity in wilderness forever. We've had federal policies, you know, for, for the last two decades that acknowledge climbing and, and, and fixed anchors have been allowed in, in federal wilderness, um, for, for-- since the beginning. I think it's also important to recognize that really the climbing community, and I think this is one of the things that has really helped get me involved in wilderness, is that the climbing community has been so fundamental to developing wilderness. Like when we look back at the, how the Wilderness Act was framed and, and who was pushing it, you know, one of the greatest climbers, historical climbers was David Brower. You know, and back in the 1950s and '60s, early '60s, before the Wilderness Act was passed in '64, David Brower was out there pushing for wilderness. But at the same time, he was kind of raging around the country, you know, on the cliffs, and he was this incredible climber. He actually is known to place the first expansion bolt in the United States, and he was a, you know, this, this massive wilderness ad- advocate and wilderness champion. And, you know, when I visited the Grand Tetons, I got to spend some time in the Murie cabins, you know, at the base where, where a lot of the, the incredible wilderness, um, ideas were, were derived and people were thinking about the Wilderness Act. You know, these folks were looking up at the Grand Teton and, and they certainly were traveling around up there. So climbing has been, like, fundamental to wilderness since the beginning, and it's been fundamental to wilderness even in recent times. And, you know, I think one of the best examples in recent time is, is, is, um, Senator Udall. When, when the senator actually is Udall, and that was a representative in Colorado, you know, he started to think about Rocky Mountain National Park, how do we designate that a wilderness? And the great story, and, and I- I've, I've spoken with him a few times about this. Um, you know, he, he later became a senator, of course, but, but he introduced the bill when he was a, when he was a congressman and-- But he, he thought of the bill
• 13:06
  way before that, when he was, um, climbing The Diamond, which is, which is this incredible cliff in Rocky Mountain National Park. It's-- I actually can see it from my house where I live in Estes Park. And Senator Udall was hanging off a cliff with his brother, um, way before he got into politics, and that's when he said he f- he, he, he came to the realization. He said, "This should be wilderness." And he was hanging off fixed anchors on a, on a little ledge, and he tells this story about him and his brother, you know, playing rock, paper, scissors to see who was gonna sleep on the outside of the ledge. Um, and, uh, and, and I think that, you know, climbing and, and fixed anchors and has, has been sort of part of wilderness since the very beginning. And it's really interesting to see, like, how these wilderness areas have been designated, um, over time. And, you know, when, when, when legislators, you know, designated wilderness at Joshua Tree, at, at Yosemite, they didn't designate the wilderness and say, "This is-- We wanna designate this wilderness, but, but there's this one thing we gotta do. You gotta remove all the climbing resources. You gotta erase all the routes on El Cap."
• 14:10
  They designated these areas because of this incredible recreational resource. So it's really been fundamental to the entire history, and it, it-- The, the, the evolution of climbing has sort of
• 14:21
  evolved in parallel with, with wilderness, and th- there's a lot of stories about it we can talk about. But that's my thought on sort of, like, the relationship between climbing and wilderness and how fundamental climbing is to, um, protecting wilderness and, and designating wilderness.
• 14:36
  I, I really appreciate that perspective and the depth you went on that, Eric. That's really helpful. A lot of, uh, I think our conversation today is gonna sort of pivot around a piece of legislation called the EXPLORE Act, uh,
• 14:49
  which was signed into law in, uh, January of twenty twenty-five, um, worked on and, and passed, I think, in '24, and then signed in '25, right? If I have that right. But I'm curious if you could talk about the state of play on this issue. And so for our audience, if there is anybody in the debate on this that thinks somehow that climbing's not appropriate in a wilderness, I, I've not met them yet. I think most people agree climbing is incredibly relevant and important and an accepted form of recreation in wilderness. But the issue has sort of pivoted around this idea of whether anchors, permanent fixed anchors, are something that's called an installation, and we'll get into that installation debate in a minute. But what was the state of play before the EXPLORE Act? Like, what led to the push for the climbing components that were in-- The EXPLORE Act was much more than this issue, obviously. But, like, what was the state of play before the EXPLORE Act, and w- why did the Access Fund think it was-- what, what was going on was not really working for climbing at the time?
• 15:45
  Well, I think that, that, you know, the, the, the existing policy today is working. Without the EXPLORE Act is, is working, and, and, and climbing has been allowed, like we said. But let's back up, 'cause I think some of the audience members might not know what fixed anchors are. You know, we t- we're all-- y-you guys are experts in wilderness policy, but, but some people don't know what it is and, and, and the history and, and it's interesting, um, to review that term. You know, wh-where did that come from? Um, basically back, uh, as I described, um, when there was the issue in the Superstition Mountain, the Superstition Wilderness, um, the leader, the founder of the Access Fund, Armando Me- Armando Menical, who actually passed away, like, two months before the EXPLORE Act passed, which was really unfortunate,
• 16:29
  um, but he came up with the term fixed anchors. The w- The, the Forest Service in the, in the late '90s developed this working group. It involved all sorts of conservation groups and American Mountain Guides Association and the American Alpine Club and Access Fund and The Wilderness Society, also Sierra Club. And they all set-- got together, and, and Armando came up with this idea of calling these things that are used to help protect climbers when they navigate vertical terrain and allow them to get off the mountains, right, to get, to get down safely. Um, the term fixed anchor was born out of that experience, and the reason why he wanted to do that was back in the '80s, there was a, there was a, a sort of a change in the climbing community, and there were some front country climbing opportunities. Remember, we've got a ton of climbing in the United States. Some of it is this wild backcountry stuff in the wilderness where people have to kind of exhibit, you know, different, you know, behaviors and different, different ethics. And then there's front country stuff. So there's, there's a lot of different types of climbing. And Armando wanted to bring together the entire climbing community. So he wanted to bring together the mountaineers who might leave, like, a sling on the top of mountains so they can get off, but he wanted to make sure that they were unified with the folks who were doing the more front country, more, you know, higher impact climbing, which maybe used more fixed anchors or bolts. So that's how this term fixed anchor was derived. It sort of encom- it encompassed everything. So fixed anchors are anything left behind that facilitates an ascent or descent of, of technical terrain, and that could be, you know, the pitons that we've, you know, the people have used in the United States for a hundred years. It includes, uh, uh, bolts, uh, expansion bolts that, that, that, that I think a lot of people think about. But it also includes, like, slings around a tree or a fixed nut or anything left behind. So that's what a fixed anchor, what a fixed anchor is. They've always been allowed in wilderness areas. So there's been, you know, in 2007, the BLM came out with the first federal policy, and it said that the Bureau of Land Management areas may, in, in the wilderness areas, they may or may not require authorization for fixed anchors. So clearly they were allowed, but maybe the f- maybe the BLM should regulate it as climbing gets more, you know, popular and there's more people, and you gotta, you gotta start managing this area. In 2013, a big group of, of, uh, of stakeholders, including wilderness groups and, you know, various conservation groups and climbing groups, um, the Mountain Guides Association and other people, including the Access Fund, all came together. And people made a lot of compromises and learned a lot of things, and actually my doctoral research, I think, was brought into this discussion because I did a bunch of research on how fixed anchors sort of affect the way people move through landscapes. And that's how Director's Order 41, the Park Service policy on fixed anchors on climbing in wilderness, came to be, DO 41, and that was in 2013. And that policy is really clear. It says, you know, "Fixed anchors do not necessarily violate the Wilderness Act." And that was the, the, the kind of the, the policy that, that ruled, um, uh, national park climbing management, um, since 2013, and it's still the, the policy today. You know, nothing, nothing's changed. There's been no changes except, of course, for the EXPLORE Act, which we'll get to. So after 2013, you know, national parks had some, some clues as to how to manage climbing in wilderness. And it gave a lot of, um, latitude to the individual park superintendents. So we saw places like Yosemite, where they-- obviously El Capitan is in wilderness. Most of it, it's, uh... El Capitan, the wilderness starts a couple hundred feet off the ground depending on where you are. And in Yosemite, they, they decided, "You know what? We're gonna provide a programmatic authorization," and that's outlined in DO 41. You could provide a programmatic authorization, which basically is saying, "We trust the climbing community. We're gonna allow them to use fixed anchors as a last resort occasionally, only when necessary, and we trust that they're managing themselves." Um, there's been some, some issues, of course, but that's been the way Yosemite has managed, um, fixed anchors. Same thing at Rocky Mountain National Park where I live. You're allowed to go out and, and, and establish a route, um, if you want, place a sling or a fixed anchor if you need, and you gotta, you gotta subscribe to certain ethics. We should also mention that, you know, a very, very few climbers establish new routes and ever place a fixed anchor. You know, it's like less, way less than 1%. So it's, it's very, very few people. Most people just go out and have these adventures. Other parks, like Joshua Tree, took a much more conservative approach and said, "You gotta get, you know, case-by-case authorization," or a place like Sequoia Kings Canyon, where fixed anchors are legal, but you gotta get a special use permit. At North Cascades, where they have a very traditional wilderness area, they say, "Well, fixed anchors are allowed. You can place pitons or slings, but bolts, you, you would need special authorization." So each park has sort of adjusted to the, to the, to the site specificity and the, and the local ethics and, and, and, and, and other, um, influences that, that, that could, that could, um, create different elements of a policy. So that's where we are right now. So what happened is, is that in, uh, 2017, um, we recognized that, man, there's just a lot of discrepancy. There's not a lot of uniformity to the way these national parks are interpreting Director's Order 41. You know, that was, that was signed by, that was signed by John Jarvis, who was a really good director of the Park Service, and at the time, there was a chief of wilderness named, named Gary Oye, who sort of influenced that, that, um, policy also. And then Gary, you know, retired and, and, and, and John Jarvis moved on to other things. And in 2017, the Park Service, um, put together this stakeholder group because we wanted to-- and, and because they wanted to figure out, like, can we provide the parks with a little bit more direction? And that direction is usually in the form of a reference manual. It's basically the instruction manual on how to implement the director's order. You all know this, but I like to sort of explain it. And, um, so we got together in 2017. It was actually in Tuh- Tucson, Arizona, in a federal building. I was living in Tucson at the time, so it was a really easy commute to that, but people were coming from all over the country. And that was a really incredible conference. It was three days. There was, uh, representatives from the Bureau of Land Management, from the Forest Service. There were climbing rangers from Denali, from Joshua Tree, from Yosemite, from New River Gorge. There were, there were representatives from the Wilderness Society and National Parks Conservation Association and American Mountain Guides and Access Fund and ACE and American Alpine Club. And people got together and had this incredible conference where we spent time talking about, um, policy. And then we also went out to Mount Lemmon, which is in the, is in the National Forest Wilderness, and, and we explored sites, and we looked at these things and talked about these things, you know, in the landscape where people are actually climbing. And it was a really incredible conference, and no one ever proposed, um, changing the policies to prohibit fixed anchors. It was just sort of like fine-tuning. How should we manage climbing so it's better managed, so people are, are, are more educated about how to behave in the wilderness, more educated about when fixed anchors are appropriate and when they're not? And at the time, we had a-- the Park Service had a new chief of wilderness. And the outcome of that was supposed to be a revised reference manual, a revised instruction manual that was gonna make it better, more fair, more universal. We waited a co- and the conference ended. We had waited a couple months, you know. Where's the r- the reference manual? Never came. You know, we w-wa-waited another year. When did it come? Never came.
• 24:09
  And then in, uh- I think it was twenty twenty-one, I might be off by a year, that Joshua Tree National Park said, "We're gonna, we're gonna, um..." The reference manual was never revised, and it was kind of a bummer because a lot of people spent a lot of time at this conference, and I learned a ton. Um, those conferences are always really valuable for, for understanding other perspectives and making compromises and understanding, um, other ideas on how to manage wilderness. And Joshua Tree National Park came out in, in twenty twenty-one and twenty twenty-two and said, "You know, we're gonna start our climbing management plan." And, um, the superintendent with the chief of wilderness and then a, a project manager, um, called me and, and my colleague, the senior policy advisor at Access Fund, Jason Keith, who's been working on this acci- on this issue for twenty-five years for the Access Fund and, and, and, and they called us in to a-- If I remember, it was a Zoom call, and they said, "Hey, guys, I, I just wanna tell you, we're gonna start this, um, new climbing management plan, but there's one thing. We're gonna base it on the fundamental assumption that fixed anchors are prohibited, and they require a minimum requirement analysis, and we just wanted to tell you that." And, and we were sort of-- Our jaws dropped, and we said, "What about all these discussions we had and all of these ideas on how to manage?" And they said, "Well, that's what we're going with."
• 25:25
  And that's the beginning of the, of the issue. And then what happened was, is that the Park Service, we said, "You know, this is such a, a hundred and eighty degree shift from the way climbing's been managed for the last, you know, three decades. We think that this needs to be, uh, a national policy. You can't just introduce this policy in, in one park, and it would certainly serve as a precedent." And that's when the, the national headquarters said-- told Joshua Tree, "Pause your climbing management plan. We're gonna, we're gonna issue a national policy on climbing." And, um, in twenty twenty-three, it was November of twenty-three, I'll never forget it. We went to Washington, DC. We were there the day before. It, it got released on a Friday, and we met with the Park Service and the Forest Service on a Thursday. And they said, "Listen, we're gonna, we're gonna issue this policy." And the policy was that fixed anchors were prohibited. And, um, and after that, you know, the, the Congress got involved, and they were really disappointed in that. A lot of, um, you know, conservation groups opposed this, this, this categorical shift and this monumental shift in policy. And that was the beginning of the Park Act, which is Section one twenty-two of the EXPLORE Act, which of course is this collection of lots and lots of different recreation bills, recreation policies, and that was the beginning of the Park Act, and it moved through, and we can talk about that. Um, but eventually it got signed into law. So that then set the standard, which essentially, um, was the legislation that supported the last thirty years of climbing policy. So this is not a monumental change. This is sort of a status quo. It sort of resolves the, the issue so the government doesn't have to spend millions of dollars on this issue anymore. I mean, the government has spent so much money. In fact, the Forest Service, you know, who started contemplating this issue in nineteen ninety-nine, to this day does not have a national policy. They're close. They introduced one actually yesterday. But, um, so, so this has been something that's been going on for a while, but the Park Act is now sort of the law that allows us to pr- that provides some, some sideboards for how policy should be created.
• 27:33
  So we shouldn't wait. Let's just go ahead and dig into it. Um, as you mentioned, in twenty twenty-five, Congress passed the EXPLORE Act, a really big bill. As you mentioned, Section one twenty-two of the EXPLORE Act incorporated the language of the Park Act, the P-A-R-C, Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act. Um, and that section settled, right? At least on paper, that fixed anchors are an appropriate use in wilderness. Um, this thing that you wanted to re- to return to just as it felt like you were getting the rug ripped out from under you. Um, but as you mentioned, the agencies are starting to put out new guidelines. Forest Service proposal just dropped two days before, uh, the three of us are recording. Um, before we dig in, into those guidelines, uh, um, you know, I, I, I just wanna ask you, um, did you feel like the Park Act, the EXPLORE Act settled the issue? Um, and if so, why do we, you know, why do we need these new actions at, at USDA and DOI?
• 28:33
  Well, the Park Act does a couple things. I mean, it certainly settles the issue legally. You know, from a legal perspective, it provides, you know, the, the, the, the answer. Are they al- uh, uh, allowable or not? And by the way, you know, the Park Act obviously evolved like all bills and, and the original iteration chan- you know, moved into a different direction. The original iteration of the bill that was introduced by, uh, um, Congressman Neguse and Congressman Curtis at the time, of course now he's a senator, um, w- included the term, uh, allowable, and the agencies didn't like that term. The Wilderness Society didn't like that term. And that's how the, the, the legislation changed to use the term fixed anchors are appropriate. And that's when the, um, you know, uh, mainstream wilderness groups and, and, and, and the agencies
• 29:23
  did not oppose that. So everyone was on the same page. So people-- I, I don't know if they supported that, but they certainly didn't oppose it. Um, but, uh, but the, but the, but the Park Act does is four things. So I think that's important for us b- to set the stage. What does this thing do? Well, the first thing it does is it requires that the agencies issue guidance, like we talked about before. The guidance is, was interesting, you know, in two thousand seven from the BLM, in two thousand thirteen from the Park Service. There's never been a policy in the Forest Service. The Forest Service manages thirty percent of America's climbing on both wilderness and non-wilderness, and it was important that the Forest Service established a policy, and one of the reasons why is there's so many forest plan revisions going on right now, as we know. I mean, people are spending so much time, and we're gonna see the next decade or so, you know, of, of, of, of, uh, public land advocacy be focused on forest plan revisions. And they needed some sort of direction. So that's why that was really important. So the first thing was, is that it, uh, the, the, the law just says the agencies that manage climbing have to issue guidance within, um, eighteen months, and we're on month seventeen. Actually, the eighteenth month to the day is July fourth of this year. Um- Um, so that's the first thing. The second thing it does is it says climbing activities, um, including the use, placement, and maintenance of fixed anchors are appropriate in wilderness. And then the third thing it does is it says that all of the existing routes that have been managed and studied for, for decades, um, they've been managed as allowable all across the country, I mean, this is tens of thousands of climbing routes in 28 states, that those routes, um, should be allowed to be used. So it sort of grandfathers in, you know, America's climbing legacy, which is really important. And then the, and then the fourth thing it does is it says when this is- this policy is issued, when this guidance is, is issued, it's gotta go out for public comment. The American public has to be able to weigh in on this, and that's where we are today. So this week on Monday, we saw the Department of Interior agencies, so that would be Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Park Service, they issued their draft guidance on Monday, and then a couple of days ago we saw the Forest Service issue their draft guidance, and they're all a little bit different, um, but they all align with the general tenets of the PARK Act. So that's where we are today. We're in those comment periods that, that mandate. So now, now the government has, you know, um, uh, has, um, issued their guidance, which, which the law says, and they've, they've offered it up for public, uh, for public comment. So we're sort of, um, manifesting what the PARK Act has actually stated.
• 31:59
  Eric, thanks for such a, a deep dive on the PARK Act, the EXPLORE Act, what led up to, uh,
• 32:06
  why some felt the, the clarity was needed and, and to be put into, into law. I wanna explore, um, you used the word prohibited, that, that the Park Service came out with this policy that prohibited, uh, climbing or made it, um, not compatible with wilderness. And, and I, I think from my perspective, I'm gonna opine for a minute here, there are a lot of things that I think the American public would be surprised to learn that are technically prohibited in wilderness. Um, but the Wilderness Act itself, and it's a thing that I think is beautiful about the Wilderness Act, um, is it has a lot of its own built-in creative tension. I think it makes it really, really a beautiful thing. Um, and if you
• 32:50
  believe in sort of what has become relatively settled law, you know, there's sort of four wilderness characters that we have to manage against, and sometimes those characters are in conflict with one another. Um, and then we have to follow the law where it has certain prohibitions and, and in the act is, is no permanent installations. Um, and I think again, I think our audience might... Some in our audience might be surprised to learn that a trail would be considered an installation. A bridge over the South Fork, uh, of the Flathead River and the Bob Marshall Wilderness would be an installation. Uh, some of the administrative cabins in a place as big as like the Bob or the Frank would be considered an installation. So you're like, "Well, how do those exist then in the wilderness?" Well, that's because the law itself, the Wilderness Act itself, goes on to then say, "But we can allow those installations or those activities," commercial outfitting is another example of that. Commercial activities are prohibited in the law, but then we turn around and, uh, we allow outfitting in wilderness, and that's because that, that follow-up section that says we can allow these things, uh, if, if they're for the implementation of the law itself. So when it comes to like outfitting, we have decided, particularly in certain places, we, uh, royal we, society, have decided that outfitting in wilderness is appropriate because it allows some of the American public who otherwise may not be able to, to experience that primitive and unconfined form of recreation, which is sort of promised to us in the Wilderness Act. Um,
• 34:20
  I say all this because this is where I sort of get squeamish on the issue a little bit. If a trail is an installation, and we have trails, which means when we put a new trail in a wilderness or we have to do a major reroute of a trail, we go through a process now, now referred to as a minimum requirements analysis framework, which is just to say, we're gonna analyze and make sure we're not... what impact this is gonna have on wilderness character and what we do with it. I'm curious, Eric, your perspective, 'cause I think we probably have a different view on this. Why is it so problematic for fixed anchors for climbing to be called an installation, but a trail is also an installation and we've had found- We've have, I mean, thousands and thousands and thousands of miles in trails. There's probably some people out there that wish we didn't, but we do. Uh, and I actually think it helps safeguard wilderness character, helps safeguard natural conditions because we concentrate use and we put use in places that are more sustainable, right? But
• 35:15
  I, I sort of tee that all up to let you respond to that, Eric, 'cause it's, it's something that I, I as a... consider myself a practitioner of the Wilderness Act. I have been a practitioner over the last 20 years, though I will point out I've never worn the uniform for one of the agencies. I have, uh, I have struggled with trying to help people understand this idea that we have a set of values, a set of characters that we're trying to manage against. Um,
• 35:44
  why shouldn't all of these exemptions that, and they are exemptions to the law 'cause the law has these hard prohibitions, um, why don't we allow the process? And, and I'll also point out, and like you and I can talk about this, the agencies are different. The Park Service is really good when it comes to wilderness management of using programmatic level, um, minimum requirements analysis, like allowing chainsaw windows, for example, is just one of the most acute ones, whereas the F- the Forest Service does it on a progra- a project-by-project basis. So talk to me a little bit about either why, how you think I'm wrong, that we sh- we could... And I'll, I'll be the first to admit, minimum requirements analbus- analysis framework sometimes can be cumbersome, and it can be slow because the agency, frankly, isn't s- the agencies aren't staffed at a level that would allow them to expedite that. But tell me, tell me why I'm wrong to feel squeamish about this issue
• 36:33
  Well, I don't think you're wrong to feel squeamish, and I think that you and I are actually on the same page. Um, I was a practitioner of the wilderness. I wore, you know, Park Service uniform, Forest Service uniform at some points, and I've thought about this a lot, and I think that, you know, you and I, um,
• 36:49
  uh, perhaps align a lot more than, than, than, you know, what you're alluding to right now. I think that it's also important, you know, when we talk about these things, like you're listing off these things, that we, we really understand that these, these four things listed in the Wilderness Act in Section 4C, that's the, the prohibited uses section. You know, these are not characters. These are prohibited uses. And, and, and when we talk about like cabins, you know, that's, that's a structure, and we-- and, and, and, you know, what's, what's prohibited is structures, installations, motorized equipment, and mechanical transport. And you're keying in on the key fact, on, on the key question. W-w-how do we consider a trail? And I think the important thing is, in that section, is that, um, it, it prescribes the minimum requirement analysis for when, when the land manager, um, requires this prohibited use for the administration of the wilderness, right? And that's for, um, the land manager or a proxy of the land manager to implement. Where, where fixed anchors gets confusing is the land managers are not placing these things. You know, it's, it's a recreation. So it's not like a trail or the bridge because these are things that the land managers are, um, are recommending or believe are important or critical to the administration of the wilderness, so they allow these prohibited installations for the administration of the wilderness. I think that when we look at... The, the, the key thing, and this is the interesting debate, um, that, that, that you and that, that, that the three of us could talk about for many, many hours. We don't have ti-time in this, on this, and, and I'd love to do that. Um, at some point, guys, we should, we should definitely get together and, and, and chat. But I think that one of the, the, the, the critical questions and one of the interesting discussion points is what are the limiting principles for these prohibitions, right? Like, are there limiting principles? And let's just look at some of these other... Let's c- if we can put installations aside just for a second, let's look at some other things that were f- that were, that are more clear. You know, w-with motorized equipment, right? So we've got these four prohibited uses, and I'm just thinking off the cuff, but, you know, let's use, let's use motorized equipment. Well, you know, how is motorized equipment defined? You know, it's defined as anything that's, um, comp- used, that's, that's powered by compressed air, internal combustion engine, batteries. You know, that's motorized equipment. That's the definition, according to the Park Service at least.
• 39:18
  So we go into the wilderness with our cell phones and our GPS units, and these are p- these are motorized equipment, you know? Why-- Should we do that? Is it, is, is it-- Do we wanna, do wanna say you can't, you, you can't bring these things in? They're clearly motorized equipment, or maybe they are. So is there a limiting principle that allows it? Well, when we look, and, and you two are, are wilderness experts, so you know. You've looked at the definitions, you know, the Park Service definitions for these things. When you look at the motorized equipment definition, it's got this long list of things that, you know, they're not exactly... You don't need to consider these things in the motorized equipment category. Um, just thinking about that definition, you know. It actually includes electric razors. To me, it's way more offensive to see someone pull out an electric razor in the wilderness and start shaving than being on the top of a mountain and needing a piece of rope around a boulder to rappel off a mountain while I'm having this wild experience, and it's the only way down. Same thing with mechanical transport. I'm, I'm not just a climber. I'm, I, I, I spend thousands of days in the wilderness, and I love backcountry skiing. Um, backcountry skis are clearly mechanical transport, right? They're using mechanical leverage. Should we allow that? Well, clearly, y-y-you should allow backcountry skiing. It's an incredible experience. I mean, there's nothing... I, my best writings and best thoughts come wandering around in the wild. So, so there's some limiting principles, and these are things that the administration, the MRAs for land managers who administer the wilderness, and it provides them the ability to maybe bring in a helicopter to fight a wildfire and so forth. But it, it doesn't-- it's not appropriate for, um, non-land managers. So, so we get into this sort of like interesting, um, zone where what is-- w-where are these things that we should make exceptions? How, how is like technology evolving? Why are we allowing GPS units? Why are we allowing razors? Why are we allowing these other things? I, I, those four prohibited uses, it doesn't say in the Wilderness Act, "This one's more-- Installation's more important than mechanical transport." These things are equal. These are all things that are prohibited and we should not, should not be allowed. So that is why this is an interesting discussion, is where are the limiting principles? And given the history, the precedent, the importance of climbing, um, I think that's why our land managers have allowed fixed anchors since the inception of the Wilderness Act and why it's really important that people do not abuse that. Fixed anchors have to be used with restraint. They have to be used only, you know, as a, as a piece of protection, as a last resort. You know, the fact is, is that climbing mountains is fundamental to wilderness. And, and some of our, the legislators who are experts in, in, in wilderness as well as climbing, like Senator Cantwell, who might currently be the best climber in Congress right now. She might. I, I think so. Although there might be some others. But, uh, actually, I think there's a, there's a, a congressman from Georgia who's, who's, who's pretty skilled too. But, um, but, but she-- the reason why she was such a champion for the Park Act was that very thing. She said, "How am I supposed to get down off the mountain? What are you gonna do? Bring a helicopter in? I g- I, I gotta get down." So she really understood it. And, and, and that kinda articulates or raises this, this interesting question.
• 42:27
  How do you let people do these things and not, um, uh, you know, make a, make an incorrect interpretation of the Wilderness Act? So that's the problem. But, but Bill, you, you and I are, are on the same page. We, we are. There's not much daylight between the way we think about the Wilderness Act and, and these things. I- it's just that I've been thinking about this one nuanced issue for a long time.
• 42:48
  Well, it's clear you've been thinking about it, and you've got a, a, a really clear and articulate way to, to frame it and, and, um, and I agree. I- there is very, very, very little daylight between us. Um, and I- it's, again, as I said, it's something that I love about the Wilderness Act is you, you, you kinda gotta stretch a lot of muscles when it comes to this. I mean,
• 43:07
  the only thing I would push back on is, is, is are we setting it up to where it's not the land managers, land managers that's deciding where it's appropriate, but just the public. And I think about a place that all wilderness lovers in the southeast enjoy, including climbers, Linville Gorge, where a place where we had a proliferation of user-created trails that have created all sorts of problems. And so I, yeah, I, I, I think [laughs] and I know you're very short on time, and we've, we've used up all of that time. We could have this conversation for hours, but I think this has been really helpful for our audience to help frame, and, and Eric, you've been such the perfect guest to sort of frame up what the issue is. Uh, appreciate you allowing me to, to push and stretch and, and, uh, provide some feedback. But you said it right, [laughs] we could probably talk about this for hours on end, and we should, and, and probably should hit record when we do that too. But I really think appreciate you taking the time to, to have this conversation with us 'cause it's in the news again this week, and that's why we're digging into all these sort of special issues in this, in this series here. So thanks for doing it, Eric.
• 44:06
  Yeah, I really enjoyed it. And you know, I think everyone, wilderness advocates, climbers, just the American public, this is the comment period on these policies. Go to these, uh, federal websites, download the policies, and we, we didn't get a chance to talk about the policies themselves. You know, we talked about Linville Gorge. Um, the Forest Service doesn't have national guidance, and now they are. And, and the interesting thing about this proposal, the p- the proposed guidance, is that it really provides a lot of latitude for individual forests to do what you just said, to make their own decisions. How should we manage it in Linville Gorge? You know, what, what, what are the, what, what's allowable and what's not? So, so that might be a good thing, sort of letting the individual, um, uh, forest supervisors kinda help decide, you know, how to do it. But, but, um, I, I, I just, I think people should, should get involved. Write, write comments. I mean, it's a 60-day comment period. It's a pretty long comment period. You got time to read the policies, ruminate over what this means, think about your experiences in wilderness, send in your comments, and that's, that's the way it works, and we'll see what comes out. I mean, your guess is as good as mine. This is just a draft, and you know, the, the proposal that we talked about from 2023, that was just a draft, too. So it would be incredible to, to, to see something finalized that everyone can live with. And, and, um, yeah. Anyway, I, I really appreciate the discussion, you two. Uh, great, great job on the podcast, and I've enjoyed being here.
• 45:28
  Thanks, Eric. Thanks for coming on. It's been a great conversation.
• 45:31
  Take care, you two.
• 45:32
  Coming up in this special series, we will challenge ourselves and our own dogma and our guests on issues that are impacting wild places. We hope we can stimulate dialogue and action, as Eric just called for. Uh, and we will continue to bring a range of our other conversations that live at the intersection of human nature and wild nature. To follow along on all of this, all you have to do is sign up for our newsletters at thewildidea.com. You can support us by Buy Me A Coffee, which you can find on our website, and help us grow our community by rating, reviewing, and sharing our podcast on your podcast player of choice. Let's all get out there, and when we do, uh, we look forward to seeing all of you on down the trail.
• 46:07
  [upbeat music] The Wild Idea is a production of Wild Idea Media and hosted by Bill Hodge and Anders Reynolds. Production and editing by Bryn Russell at PodLab. Digital support by Holly Wilcheszewski at Daypack Digital. Our theme music, Spring Hill Jack, is from Railroad Earth and was composed by John Skehan. Our executive producer and ringleader is Lara Hodge. You can find The Wild Idea wherever you listen to or download your favorite podcast. If you have a minute, please take a minute to give us a rating, and if you really like us, we hope you'll subscribe. Learn more about us at thewildidea.com.