AAC Submits Comment on Proposed Bears Ears Climbing Management Plan

PC: Jeremiah Watt

On March 8, 2024 the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) opened the public comment period for the Bears Ears National Monument Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, notably impacting the world-renowned climbing of Indian Creek, UT. The BLM and USFS held open-house style public meetings with opportunities to speak with resource specialists, as well as provided virtual meeting options to attend. The public comment period closed Tuesday, June 11th, and the AAC submitted the comment below which supports tribal co-management of the Monument, makes recommendations on zoning/area designations, asks questions regarding proposed permitting and closure criteria, and other topics of interest to the climbing community. Read on to learn more about the draft management plan and the AAC’s perspective on it.

---

June 11, 2024

Bureau of Land Management

Bears Ears National Monument

Monticello Field Office

P.O. Box 7

Monticello, Utah 84535

Email: blm_ut_monticello_monuments@blm.gov

RE: Public Comment, Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Bears Ears National Monument (BENM)

The American Alpine Club (“AAC”) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for the Bears Ears National Monument. The BENM, and more specifically Indian Creek, is a world-class destination for rock climbing and attracts many of the AAC’s 26,000-plus members nationwide to climb and enjoy the recreation and cultural resources in BENM. The AAC looks forward to continued engagement with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in regard to climbing management and values the efforts of the BLM and USFS to steward the abundant and unique resources of BENM. This RMP will be critical in managing the ecological, cultural, and natural resources of the BENM, especially as more people recreate in the outdoors in all forms of activities. The AAC would like to be considered a resource for the BLM and USFS in helping steward these important resources for generations to come and support the BLM’s and USFS’s effort to create an informed and enduring RMP.

I. The American Alpine Club

The AAC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Golden, Colorado, with over 26,000 members nationally. Founded in 1902 to support the research and exploration of mountainous regions, the AAC remains committed to supporting the climbing and human-powered outdoor recreation communities over a century later. Grounded in community and location, the AAC’s mission is to share and support members’ passion for climbing and respect for the places they climb. Through education, community gatherings, stewardship, policy, advocacy, and scientific research, the AAC strives to build a united community of competent climbers and healthy climbing landscapes.

II. Alternative E

A. Tribal Co-Management. The AAC supports the recommended tribal co-management of BENM found in Alternative E1 [1]. Recognizing that this is a precedent-setting methodology of management that may serve as a model for future co-management opportunities, we seek several points of clarification within Alternative E that we hope will be addressed prior to or in conjunction with any implementation plan. While we find points of merit in all the alternatives presented in the Draft RMP, we believe that any plan which does not include a component of tribal co-management would be a missed opportunity to recognize Traditional Indigenous Knowledge (TIK)[2] as a valuable resource in decision-making regarding conservation, environmental, and cultural resources. We support utilization of the Bears Ears Commission (BEC) established in 2016 [3], as described in the Presidential Proclamation creating BENM, stating:

““In recognition of the importance of tribal participation to the care and management of the objects identified above, and to ensure that management decisions affecting the monument reflect tribal expertise and traditional and historical knowledge, a Bears Ears Commission (Commission) is hereby established to provide guidance and recommendations on the development and implementation of management plans and on management of the monument.” [4]
”

— from the Presidential Proclamation Creating BENM

B. Zones. Alternative E proposes the management of recreation through a zoned approach, designating four zones consisting of Front Country, Passage, Outback, and Remote [5]. This zoned approach would largely remove existing recreation management designations (such as Recreation Management Zones (RMZ) and Special Recreation Management Areas). The Indian Creek area, as an area of primary interest to the climbing community, would be largely located in the Outback and Remote Zones [6]. Indian Creek is currently designated as a Special Recreation Management Area (SRMA), and subject to the regulations associated with that SRMA [7] such as dispersed camping regulations, regulations regarding interaction with archeological sites, wild species avoidance guidance, trail usage regulations, and more.

The novel zone designations as written and applied to the zoning proposed for Indian Creek are unnecessarily restrictive and do not allow for future management flexibility. In Remote Zones no “new sites/facilities/trails would be developed”[8] and in Outback Zones no “new sites/facilities would be developed”[9] except for the possibility of “minor recreation facilities such as trails, trailhead markers, and informational kiosks” [10] when deemed “necessary.” These in toto exclusions do not provide land managers with the flexibility for future management concerns, which are easily accounted for in the existing SRMA and can be tailored in future SRMA or RMZ designations. We recommend utilizing a hybrid zone/designation system such as that utilized in the 2020 Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument Management Plan [11] which allows for the development of SRMAs and RMZs that are more tailored within any zone, or sub-component of a zone, to address the specific management concerns of that zone and accounting for BEC collaboration in that decision-making process. The SRMAs and/or RMZs would be managed in accordance with the distinct recreation-tourism market for which they were created and in conjunction with the BEC.

C. Permitting. The proposal to develop a Monument permit system that would require a permit for all “private overnight and day use in all canyons”[12] is a dramatic departure from current practices. If the intent is to simply account for the general number and whereabouts of visitors on a no-cost basis then the AAC supports that proposition provided it has varying methods of registration accommodating various ability levels (i.e., in-person, web-based, etc). If the recommendation is for a permit fee structure, we would request an opportunity to see the specific proposed permit fees prior to making recommendations on a permitting plan. However, we do generally support increased management of the resources at BENM and understand permitting may be a requisite component of efficient management of the resources.

D. Approval Process for New Routes. The AAC appreciates the agencies. recognizing that the climbing in BENM located in and around Indian Creek is “world famous”[13] and important to the local recreation economy [14]. The climbing activity specific management proposal [15] is of particular interest to our membership and impacts climbers worldwide. We support the recommendation that, “replacement of existing bolts, anchors, and fixed gear would be allowed on existing climbing and canyoneering routes as needed for safety reasons without prior authorization”[16]. In regard to the approval of new routes which require fixed anchors we recommend that, where appropriate, the agencies in collaboration with the BEC and delegated climbing organizations/representatives consider programmatic approval of routes for specific zones when considering the overall new route approval process. We also recommend that an interim process of route approval be developed prior to implementation in order to ensure that new routes can be considered by land managers and the BEC while the new process is under consideration, avoiding a de facto moratorium on new route development. For both the interim and final climbing management plans we recommend that local climbers and climbing organizations be engaged in the process for substantive input to inform those plans.

E. Closures. The draft plan states that, “Existing access points, trails, and climbing routes that are consistent with the protection of BENM objects would remain available for use. If site-specific impacts exist, climbing routes can be closed and access trails and staging areas may be closed or rerouted”[17] and that, “Climbing closures would be identified in accordance with applicable law” [18]. The AAC asks for clarification on what criteria would be utilized in the determination of “consistent with the protection of BENM” as well as the criteria that would be utilized to determine “impact.” We understand that the criteria could be dependent upon whether the closure is aimed to protect an ecological/biological resource such as raptors, or a cultural resource such as an archaeological site. We also seek clarification of the factors or criteria to be considered for determining a “resource rest” is appropriate to justify a closure, as well as how the length of time for a resource rest would be calculated.

F. Commercial Filming. Under Alternative E no commercial filming would be allowed [19]. We believe that a wholesale prohibition to commercial filming on BENM could be a missed opportunity to promote the cultural, biological, and ecological relevance of the Monument, as well as amplifying best-practices through the media arts. The agencies should consider reviewing commercial project proposals in conjunction with the BEC through the existing film permitting system [20] and consider those that may enhance and/or promote the image of BENM.

III. Conclusion

The American Alpine Club values this opportunity to represent over 26,000 members, and the collective climbing community, on the future of climbing management in the Bears Ears National Monument. In summary, the AAC would like to reiterate our strong support of this historic tribal co-management opportunity through the BEC. We ask that consideration be given to preserving the current SRMA in Indian Creek, or future SRMAs/RMZs, in order to remain flexible for current and future recreation needs. We seek clarification on matters concerning permitting and fees, new climbing route approval processes, and criteria for area closure and rest periods. Additionally, we ask that consideration be given to the outright prohibition of commercial filming on the Monument.

The AAC will remain committed to instilling the ethos of utilizing the best low-impact climbing techniques and practices, and staunchly supporting appropriate recreation on our Nation’s public lands. The AAC is ready and willing to assist the BLM and USFS to develop a plan that sustainably manages the climbing resources of Bears Ears National Monument, while protecting the culturally significant resources of the Monument. The AAC looks forward to continuing to work with the agencies in the interim and through the implementation of this plan.

Respectfully,

Byron E. Harvison

Director, Policy and Government Affairs

The American Alpine Club

---

1–U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Forest Service, Bears Ears National Monument, Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 1: Executive Summary and Chapters 1-4, 2.1.6, March 2024.

2— Ibid, 3.3.

3—Presidential Proclamation 9558, Establishment of the Bears Ears National Monument, 82 Federal Register 1139, December 28, 2016.

4—Ibid, page 1144.

5—See U.S. DOI, U.S.D.A., BENM at ES-4.6.

6–U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National NEPA Register, BENM Draft RMP/EIS Interactive Map, BLM UT BENM Zones Alt E Draft, release date March 13, 2024, accessed June 5, 2024. https://eplanning.blm.gov/EPLCommentMap/?itemId=f11acb57f3f64bbf922335ad796faa20

7— See https://www.blm.gov/visit/indian-creek-bears-ears-national-monument#:~:text=The%20Indian%20Creek%20Special%20Recreation,of%20Bears%20Ears%20National%20Monument. Accessed May 29, 2024.

8— See U.S. DOI, U.S.D.A., BLM, BENM at 2-82.

9— Ibid.

10— Ibid.

11— U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Record Decision and Approved Resource Management Plans for the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument, 85 Federal Register 9802, February 2, 2020.

12– See U.S. DOI, U.S.D.A., BLM, BENM at 2-102.

13— Ibid at 1-3.

14— Ibid at 1-3, and ES-24.

15— See U.S. DOI, U.S.D.A., BLM, BENM at 2-115.

16— Ibid.

17— Ibid at 2-80.

18— Ibid.

19– Ibid at 2-75.

20— https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/leases-and-permits/filming-on-public-lands/film-permitting-process, accessed June 3, 2024.

AAC and Yosemite National Park Sign General Agreement and Formalize Partnership

Photo by AAC member Dawn Kish

By Byron Harvison, AAC Director of Policy and Gov’t Affairs

On August 2, 2023, the American Alpine Club entered into a General Agreement with the Yosemite National Park Service with the goal of supporting and promoting climbing in Yosemite Valley. This new formalized partnership is built upon a strong foundation of working together for decades—including on projects like the Yosemite Big Wall Permitting Program, Climber Coffee, sponsoring Yosemite Facelift, and the United in Yosemite festival. This opportunity will allow the AAC to assist the climbing management program at YNPS with public outreach, offer subject matter expertise on climbing stewardship matters, and identify other projects and services which could benefit the Park and climbing community—building on the long established and well-loved climbing iniatives that will continue to exist in the Park.

The AAC has a long history of supporting climbing within the Park and working with Park staff to educate climbers on issues related to climbing in the Park, identifying areas of historic significance, such as Camp 4, and promoting volunteerism. This General Agreement represents the AAC taking on a more formal role. At a time when visitorship of Yosemite National Park, and most National Parks, is at an all time high and park budgets are not being increased to meet the demand, relationships such as this can help bridge the gap.

Key among the intended responsibilities of the Club is the continued refinement and encouragement of responsible climbing practices and stewardship of the climbing areas and infrastructure supporting climbing activities within the Park. This could include working with the Park on impact mitigation projects, maintenance, and construction of climbing related structures or trails, and coordinating and informing volunteers to assist with those projects when appropriate. The Club will assist in the distribution of safety information, closures, and informing the community regarding Park-specific regulations. This work will also include educating climbers on the ins-and-outs of the recently  instituted Big Wall Permitting Program, which is a free self-registered permit that is required of all climbers overnighting on big wall climbs. Park staff will look for the AAC’s input on climbing-ethics related issues such as how to address gear-dumping, fixed lines, and storage on top of climbs for top-down attempts on the walls as opposed to embracing the ground-up ethos.

The AAC worked closely with the YNPS staff on the Agreement to outline the areas the Club can have the most impact on the climbing community and the Park, and coordinate work with other organizations such as Yosemite Conservancy and the Yosemite Climbing Association. We greatly appreciate the attention the climbing management program at YNPS has given this matter, and the enthusiastic support from Yosemite National Park. We are thoroughly excited about the opportunities this historic agreement makes possible!

---

Learn More from our Interview with Head Yosemite Climbing Ranger Jesse McGahey

---

For Media Enquiries

American Alpine Club Contact, Vice President of Marketing and Communications
Shane Johnson, sjohnson@americanalpineclub.org or 303-384-0110

Yosemite National Park Media Contact
Scott Gediman, scott_gediman@nps.gov or (209)742-3519

Whose Risk Is It? How A Little-Known Statute Protects Climbing Access Across America

Taken from the DeCaLiBron, a Colorado link-up of four 14ers—Mt. Democrat, Mt. Cameron, Mt. Lincoln, and Mt. Bross. Lincoln and Bross are on private land. PC: Lucy Hooper

by Alex Derr

Climbing, bouldering, and mountaineering are inherently risky activities—we all know that. Loose rocks, extreme weather, and freak accidents are just a few of the threats we face when we head to the mountains. For many, that sense of uncertainty and adventure is part of what makes it so special. Risk is the price we pay to practice our passion. However, while climbers often discuss aspects of personal risk, including how to identify risk, manage, and mitigate it, we rarely discuss the flip side of the coin: personal liability. Every now and then, debates break out into the open over who is ultimately responsible for ensuring climber safety. Is it climbers themselves, the broader climbing community, or the managers and owners of the land they climb on?

Personal liability pertains to the ethical and legal obligations someone may have in the event of injury, damage, or loss while engaged in recreational activities such as climbing. If an individual is deemed liable for your injury, you have the legal right to sue for damages. This serves not only as a method for financial recovery but also as a deterrent against future negligence to ensure the safety of others. To fully understand this complex issue, it's helpful to envision liability and risk as two ends of a continuum related to recreational responsibility.

On one end, you have individuals who fully accept personal risk. These people assume complete responsibility for their own safety, attributing any accidents to either their own actions or natural phenomena. On the other end are those who believe that the onus of their safety largely falls on others. According to this perspective, climbers are entitled to be warned of, or protected from, any potential hazards while engaged in climbing activities. In cases where that isn’t possible, trails or crags should be closed if that is what is required to keep the public safe.

In reality, most climbers fall somewhere in the middle, leaning ever so slightly in the direction of personal risk. We appreciate that safety is ultimately our own responsibility, while acknowledging that in some cases, others may bear some responsibility for accidents and injuries. For example, few climbers would ever consider suing a landowner because they fell and were injured because a handhold broke or an anchor gave way. However, if a landowner purposefully damaged the anchors to try and deter climbing, most would consider them liable for injuries that result. 

Mt. Sherman, one of Colorado’s 14ers that is on private land. PC: Katie Sauter

Historically, personal liability has been more than a mere theoretical issue. In the 1960s, demand for recreation access started to grow as the population boomed and hiking, camping, climbing, and skiing surged in popularity. Public lands were filling up, so climbers and other groups sought out new wild places on private land and sought permission to access them. While landowners were often sympathetic, they faced significant legal hurdles that led many to refuse. At the time, the legal system used three categories to determine what duty of care a landowner owed visitors on their land. 

Trespassers (individuals without permission), had a very low duty of care. Landowners could only be sued if they intentionally harmed them. However, licensees (individuals with implicit permission) had a much higher standard, with landowners expected to warn them of dangerous conditions, mitigate hazards, and close the land if necessary to ensure safety. Lastly, invitees (individuals present as part of a commercial transaction) had the highest standard, as landowners had to proactively inspect their property to identify and remove hazards. 

Depending on the specific circumstances, climbers and hikers were usually classified as either invitees or licensees, leaving landowners open to significant lawsuits if they were injured or killed due to a landowner’s perceived negligence. A series of high profile lawsuits in multiple states created a chilling effect that made it nearly impossible to gain access to private areas for recreation in most parts of the country.   

AAC grant recipients climbing Crestone Needle. One trailhead to access Crestone Needle is on private land.

To address the situation, the National Conference of State Legislatures crafted a model statute in 1965 called a recreational use statute (RUS). The original draft was relatively simple: in exchange for providing free public access on their land, landowners would receive strong legal protections, leaving them liable for injuries only when they willfully or maliciously fail to warn visitors of known dangerous hazards. Within a decade, all 50 states adopted a RUS to protect landowners, promote personal responsibility, and keep access open for outdoor recreation.

While all recreational use statutes are based on the first Model Act, they have been amended and added to many times over the decades in response to lawsuits, accidents, and changes in the way we recreate and enjoy the outdoors. For example, the first statutes adopted only protected private landowners, despite the fact that public lands were also at risk of major lawsuits. In 1979, an updated model act addressed this gap, with added clarification that recreational use statutes were intended to protect owners and managers of both private and public lands. While most states have adopted this change, there are still a few outliers.

Another significant difference across recreational use statutes are their exceptions. No RUS provides a blanket liability shield. Each lists a few situations where a landowner might still be found liable, in an effort to balance public access with public safety. In all 50 states, landowners are held responsible if they intentionally inflict harm—by setting traps, for example, or deliberately tampering with safety equipment. Additionally, most states leave landowners liable for injuries if they charge an access fee or run a commercial operation on their land. Beyond those conditions, there is widespread variation from state-to-state.

For example, Ohio’s recreational use statute protects landowners in almost every circumstance; they can only be sued if they injure someone purposefully and maliciously. On the other hand, 12 states leave landowners liable for willful and wanton activities or grossly negligent actions, and more than 20 states require landowners to warn visitors of any known dangerous conditions on their land. This creates a substantial burden, especially for large land holdings where there may be hundreds of known hazards, which must all be addressed to protect them from liability. In areas where climbing is popular, this can be an even greater lift, as installing warning signs on rocky terrain is both time-consuming and expensive.

The author on Mt. Sherman, one of the CO 14ers that is on private land.

Colorado offers a case in point. A 2018 Federal Court ruling held the U.S. Air Force Academy accountable for a bicyclist's severe injuries sustained on a known hazardous trail on their property. The court ordered the Academy to pay $7.8 million in damages. Following the ruling, four major peaks were closed to the public within a two-year period: Mount Lindsey, Mount Democrat, Mount Cameron, and Mount Lincoln. Though legal experts and the Colorado Trial Lawyers Association argued that this verdict was an outlier, the decision nevertheless prompted many landowners to close their lands to avoid potential lawsuits. Some peaks have temporarily reopened, thanks to a cooperative liability waiver system, but their long-term status remains in flux as advocacy groups like the American Alpine Club push for legislative revisions.

Culebra Peak, one of Colorado’s 14ers on private land. Photo courtesy of the American Alpine Club Library

Recreational use statutes can also affect our access to public lands. Flaws in a RUS can have major impacts on access to state parks and other lands, as demonstrated by the situation in Hawaii. In 1999, dozens of people were relaxing and swimming in a pool at Sacred Falls State Park when a rockslide came down the mountain above them. When the dust settled and first responders arrived, they found eight dead and more than thirty others wounded. Within a few months, several of the victims and their families filed a lawsuit against the state, eventually winning $8 million in a settlement agreement with the Attorney General.

Unlike other states, Hawaii’s legislature specified that public lands were not covered under the RUS, leaving them at a higher risk of liability than most state land managers. In the case of Sacred Falls, the state had installed ten different warning signs to let visitors know about the danger of falling rocks. The court found that the signs did not meet the standard of care owed to the visitors—and thus the state was liable for their injuries.

The lawsuit’s impacts were immediate and significant. In addition to Sacred Falls State Park, more than 20 different trails, parks, and wilderness areas were closed to the public. The state could no longer count on the protection of their RUS and decided the risk was too great to allow the public to access these areas. One of the biggest losses was the Mokulēʻia Wall, a 95-foot climbing crag famous for its multiple routes on the shores of Oahu. 

Hawaii’s climbing community did not stand idle. After two and a half years of negotiations and discussions with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, they formed the Hawaii Climbers Coalition and received a permit to resume climbing at Mokulēʻia, provided they handle visitor education, anchor inspection, and record-keeping to reduce the liability risks for the state. While these partnerships have been able to keep some areas open, many remain closed—and numerous attempts to address the situation through updates to the law have fizzled out due to opposition by the state’s Trial Lawyers Association.

As more people continue to embrace outdoor recreation, including climbing and mountaineering, we can expect recreational use statutes to become even more relevant. With public lands and parks filling up, and new permit and reservation systems launching each year, there has never been a greater need to work with private landowners to expand access to rural lands for outdoor adventure. There are many potential ways that states can improve these statutes, provide stronger safeguards and flexibility for landowners, and thereby incentivize access for the public.

Some states are providing landowners more flexibility to charge use or access fees. Most recreational use statutes only apply if access is granted to the public without charge. However, this leaves the landowner with no way to raise money to install warning signs, maintain trails, and clean up after visitors. It also limits their ability to purchase liability insurance or pay to run a waiver system—both of which significantly increase their protection. By allowing landowners to collect a small fee, with an annual and individual cap, states give them more ability to manage the impacts of access and provide more protection for themselves from lawsuits. 

Another place where states can make changes is the issue of attractive nuisances. This doctrine applies to hazards like swimming pools, mining ruins, or farming equipment that are obviously dangerous to adults, but are attractive to children who are unable to appreciate the danger they face. Typically, landowners remain liable for injuries caused by an attractive nuisance, unless they install a fence or other barriers to keep the area inaccessible. These nuisances are common along 14er trails and backpacking routes in the western mountains, and would require major investments and installations to fence off. To address this gap, Colorado amended its RUS in 2005 to shield landowners from attractive nuisance claims that stem from abandoned mining ruins, while leaving the doctrine alone in most other situations. In most other states, this liability risk remains open. 

An example of an attractive nuisance, on Mt. Sherman. This building collapsed in 2016-17. PC: Katie Sauter

Finally, many states have added specific clauses, exceptions, or amendments to address specific landowner concerns or complaints. For example, New Hampshire’s RUS includes a provision that states visitors must remain on designated trails and away from farming equipment or they are automatically classified as trespassers. This addressed concerns among farmers that people would wander and injure themselves while exploring old barns, fields, or irrigation ditches. In Rhode Island, the legislature added a clarification that municipalities were protected after a woman broke her leg walking in a city park and filed a lawsuit against its managers. 

No one wants to get injured while hiking, climbing, or mountaineering. Yet we all acknowledge that outdoor recreation is inherently dangerous: especially in rugged, mountainous terrain. At the same time, we appreciate that those with the ability to warn visitors about a dangerous hazard should do so if it is within their power. Recreational use statutes represent our best attempt to balance these competing priorities: personal risk and personal liability. Only time will tell how these statutes continue to evolve as the demand for recreation increases.

In the meantime, by continuing to work with landowners rather than against them, working hard to help manage and mitigate our own risk, and listening to and helping address their concerns whenever possible, we can all help keep these amazing places open to the public for generations to come. To learn more and support the work of the American Alpine Club and their partners to adapt Colorado’s statute and protect access to the state’s 14ers, visit www.fixCRUS.org.

---

About the Author

The author halfway up the Red Gully on Crestone Peak in September 2020.

Alex Derr is a climber, advocate, and environmental policy expert. As secretary of the Fix CRUS Coalition, he is working with more than 40 organizations to strengthen Colorado’s recreational use statute to secure public access to all of the state’s 14ers, trails, and wild areas on private lands. He is Founder and Director of The Next Summit, a blog focused on mountain safety and Leave No Trace in the American West. He is also the Director of Marketing & Communications at Visible Network Labs, a startup that uses social network analysis to map and strengthen cross-sector partnerships. He lives in Aurora, Colorado with his partner Jake and their dog Summit.

Appeal Aims to Protect California’s Pine Mountain, Reyes Peak from Controversial Logging Project

Reposted from the press release of Los Padres ForestWatch

Conservation groups filed an appeal on September 19th in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to cancel a controversial logging and vegetation clearing project atop Pine Mountain and Reyes Peak in Southern California’s Los Padres National Forest.

The appeal seeks to protect a remote ridgeline important to Indigenous groups, climbers, hikers, and other outdoor enthusiasts concerned about the future of this popular forest. In 2022, a coalition of conservation organizations filed lawsuits against the Forest Service on the grounds that the logging and chaparral clearing project would violate environmental laws, harm vulnerable wildlife, and do irreparable damage to the ecology of the forest.

“This logging project would devastate some of the most diverse and unique habitats in the Los Padres National Forest,” said Hans Cole, vice president of Environmental Activism at Patagonia. “Pine Mountain is 90 minutes from our headquarters in Ventura and the area is important to our employees and customers because of its outdoor recreation opportunities including rock climbing, hiking and camping. We will continue advocating for more conservation of Los Padres National Forest.”

The appeal seeks to overturn a U.S. Forest Service decision to cut mature trees and grind native chaparral across 755 acres on Pine Mountain. The project area — equivalent in size to 575 American football fields — is on ancestral lands of the Chumash, who call the mountain ‘Opnow. It is historically and culturally important to Indigenous people, popular with locals and tourists for a range of recreational activities, and home to old-growth conifer forests and unique ecosystems.

“Commercial logging and other activities allowed under the Reyes Peak Project would do irreparable harm to vulnerable wildlife and pristine areas of the forest,” said Maggie Hall, Deputy Chief Counsel at the Environmental Defense Center. “This appeal is critical to protect this beautiful natural place and prevent logging companies from exploiting a sacred cultural site.”

“Today’s appeal seeks to hold the Forest Service accountable for exploiting loopholes, disregarding public input, and threatening irreparable damage to one of our region’s last remaining mature and old growth forests,” said ForestWatch executive director Jeff Kuyper. “We are asking the Ninth Circuit to set aside this dangerous approach that places our forests, our climate, and our communities at risk.”

The U.S. Forest Service approved the logging and clearing in 2021 amid widespread criticism, with more than 16,000 people opposing the project. Indigenous groups, ecologists, archaeologists, retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Forest Service scientists, local business owners, dozens of conservation organizations, elected officials, and others requested major changes to the project and an environmental review before moving forward. Most commenters were concerned about using heavy equipment to cut large, healthy trees, possibly using a commercial timber sale. Forest Service officials dismissed these concerns and did not make any changes to the project.

“Most of the current science finds that removing trees from forests creates a hotter, drier, and windier microclimate that actually increases overall severity in wildfires,” said Dr. Chad Hanson, forest ecologist with the John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute.

“The climbing areas and landscape at Pine Mountain deserve to be protected and preserved in order to allow future generations to discover and enjoy the many recreational opportunities the area offers,” said Byron Harvison, Director of Policy and Government Affairs at The American Alpine Club. “Pine Mountain's storied history in local climbing lore, as well as its unique topography and biology, deserve a closer analysis before the terrain is changed forever.”

Last year the groups sued the Forest Service in U.S. District Court, saying the project would violate environmental laws, harm vulnerable wildlife, and damage intact roadless areas in the forest. The groups alleged violations of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Roadless Area Conservation Rule and National Forest Management Act. In July a federal judge ruled against the groups and allowed the project to proceed.

“Pine Mountain represents a uniquely special environment for its high elevation ancient conifers, its views to our offshore islands, and its variety of recreation opportunities,” said Keep Sespe Wild conservation director Alasdair Coyne. “Logging these old growth conifers will do nothing to protect homes from forest fires, as there are no buildings for miles around.”

“Pine Mountain includes some of Southern California’s last remaining roadless areas, including beautiful old-growth forests that provide crucial wildlife habitat,” said Justin Augustine, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “These forests deserve to be protected, not logged. We’re relying on the appeals court to stop this reckless project.”

Groups filing the appeal are Los Padres ForestWatch, Keep Sespe Wild Committee, Earth Island Institute, and American Alpine Club, represented by the Environmental Defense Center; and the Center for Biological Diversity, California Chaparral Institute, and Patagonia Works, represented by the Center for Biological Diversity.

Lay of the Land: How Two Congressional Bills Might Dramatically Change the Guiding and Climbing Landscape

It’s the hottest topic since the bolting wars, but most climbers don’t know about it yet. Are you fully in the know? The lay of the land is changing—climbing access is changing—and you can help us change it for the better. Two pieces of federal legislation have been introduced in Congress: AORA, which will modernize the permitting system on public lands and increase access and opportunity for guides of all recreational backgrounds; and the PARC Act, which aims to protect the traditional use of bolts and other fixed anchors in Wilderness areas, like Yosemite and Joshua Tree. But don’t rely on hearsay. Get the full breakdown on the implications of these pieces of legislation here, and find out what you can do to get them over the finish line and protect and modernize climbing on our public lands.

---

Sign Up for AAC Emails

Voices From The Guiding Community

Photo by Jeremiah Watt.

Guides are often the unsung heroes of the climbing community, and being able to offer guiding services is not as simple as it seems. Tune in to hear straight from guides from across the country about how permitting is impacting the guiding landscape. 

Among others, AMGA guide Dale Remsberg weighs in: “For me as an AMGA/IFMGA guide, access to varied terrain is what gives the ability to work and have a successful career. Some of the new legislation could greatly help with guide mobility and the ability to take our guests to terrain that is best for them or the conditions. Currently with access being so restricted it’s difficult to navigate poor conditions and provide quality experiences for our guests.”

---

Sign Up For AAC Emails

An Interview With: Phil Powers

Photo by Jeremiah Watt.

Phil Powers is the former CEO of the AAC, owner of The Mountain Guides in Jackson, WY, and has 40+ years of guiding experience. He’s seen guiding change and grow, and he knows what’s at stake with the passage of legislation like AORA and the PARC Act. We sat down with Powers to get a more in-depth look at the guiding landscape, and to understand how critical AORA and the PARC Act are to guides and the climbing community as a whole. His tangible details are a really compelling look at why all climbers should be activating to advocate for these bills!

---

Sign Up for AAC Emails

An Interview With: Patrick Harrington

Patrick Harrington is the manager of the Wyoming Office of Outdoor Recreation. We sat down with Harrington to dig into why AORA is imperative legislation to pass for all outdoor recreationists, and for sustaining the outdoor recreation economy at large. With his experience managing and advocating for recreation in one of the most sought after locations for US sport and adventure climbing, we learned a lot about how legislation like AORA can have a reverberating impact: on rural getaway communities, on the accessibility of climbing, on the economics of guiding, and more. 

---

Sign Up for AAC Emails

From the AAC Policy Desk

This brief update from your AAC policy team covers lobbying on The Hill, the new make-up of Congress due to the midterms, and some bills that we’re prioritizing in our policy work this year. If you ever wonder….what is the AAC doing in the federal policy realm to help support public lands? This article gives you a quick update on our most recent efforts.

---

---

From Active Duty to Activism

The AAC’s New Government Affairs Liaison Flips the Script on Advocacy

By Gov’t Affairs Liason, Byron Harvison

“My journey to activism wasn’t really about me but rather about continued service to others. Climbing, a “past-time” that helped me discover who I was, became a passion. That passion enabled me to help other Veterans overcome hardship and ultimately led to a career in working on policy matters that impact climbers throughout the country. “ —Byron Harvison

Introducing our new Government Affairs Liaison! Joining the AAC’s policy team is Byron Harvison—a veteran, lawyer, and long-time volunteer with the American Alpine Club. In this article, he shares how he got involved with climbing advocacy, and how he’s seen it grow and explode throughout the years.

---

---

The Power of a Name: Protecting the Dolores River Canyon

by Sierra McGivney

PC: AAC Member John Fitzpatrick (Grumpyhighlander Photography)

“There’s a saying in Colorado that whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over,” says Widen.

The AAC sat down with Jeff Widen, an advocate behind the efforts to preserve Colorado’s Dolores River Canyon, to learn about the climbing, fishing, whitewater rafting and so much more that happens there, and why it needs to be protected as a National Conservation Area. This article delves into the complexities of preserving public land in a way that is helpful for all stakeholders, and what you can do to help preserve the Dolores River Canyon.

---

---

Gathering Place: Tommy Caldwell Reflects on Protecting Oak Flat

by Tommy Caldwell

PC: AAC Member Dawn Kish

“Climbers slipped on tattered Gramicci pants and duck taped down jackets, unzipped themselves from tents or crawled out of the back of pickup trucks. Like cattle coming in for their morning feed, everyone wandered down to the start line. It was 1994, and this ragtag crew represented America’s cutting edge. Despite its scrappy appearance, The Phoenix Bouldering Contest was the biggest bouldering competition in the world and the energy was buzzing. “ —Tommy Caldwell

In this article, Tommy Caldwell remembers the early days of outdoor comps at Oak Flat, AZ, and what it means to take action to protect the places we love. Tommy’s article explores what’s at stake in losing Oak Flat to copper mining, and what we as climbers can do to ensure Oak Flat is protected for the San Carlos Apache Tribe, for the sake of the environment, and for the classic boulders and climbing there.

---

---

Summit Register 007

In our most recent issue of the Summit Register, the AAC’s policy zine:

PC: AAC Member William Woodward

1. Tommy Caldwell reflects on the old days of boulder comps at Oak Flat, and why climbers need to take action to permanently protect Oak Flat from a devastating mining operation;

2. We cover the efforts advocates are taking to preserve the Dolores River Canyon for climbing, whitewater, fishing, and much more;

3. And finally, Byron Harvison (the AAC’s new Gov’t Affairs Liason!) reflects on his journey from active duty to activism within the climbing community.

---

---

Support this Work!

Become an AAC member today!

Economic Impact Report: 2020 Ouray Ice Festival

PC: Laurel Myers. Climber: Taylor Luneau

Climbing, and outdoor recreation in general, has important (and often positive) impacts on local economies that are near destination climbing areas. Quantifying our economic impact as climbers can help us replicate these impacts across the country, and make sure recreation has positive impacts, even for those who aren’t outdoor recreationists themselves. Finally, economic impact studies like this one allow the AAC to communicate our political power to lawmakers when we are advocating for issues that matter to climbers.

Our Policy Director, Taylor Luneau, teamed up with leading researchers Dr. James Maples and Dr. Michael Bradley, who conduct economic impact studies and outdoor recreation research across the nation, to identify tangible impacts of ice climbers traveling to Ouray county. The AAC worked with Ouray Ice Park, Eastern Kentucky University, and The Center for Economic Development, Entrepreneurship, and Technology, to conduct this study. Dive in here, to explore this research that quantifies the economic impact of the 2020 Ouray Ice Festival on Ouray County.

---

Summary of Findings

This study examined the economic impact of the 2020 Ouray Ice Festival which occurred in Ouray, Colorado on January 23-26, 2020. In all, 5,000 persons participated in the event. Major findings of this study include:

1. Participants living outside Ouray County spent an estimated $808,359 in Ouray County while at the Ouray Ice Festival.

2. Participants living outside Ouray County generated $349,843 in labor income in Ouray County as a result of the Ouray Ice Festival.

3. Participants living outside Ouray County spent around $130 on day visits, while persons staying overnight spent an additional $96 on motels/hotels or $25 on cabin/AirBnB use.

4. Participants focused nearly all of their expenditures inside Ouray County rather than the surrounding area.

---

Support this Work!

Become an AAC Member or Renew Your membership today!

PROTECT: Vote the Crag this November

We’re sending it to the polls this midterm election….are you? In this mini-episode of the podcast, we sat down with the AAC’s Policy Director to discuss voting in the midterms this November, including important issues for climbers to consider, like public lands bills, climate change legislation, and judicial appointees. We keep it short and sweet since we know it can be overwhelming. So sit tight for the quick hits!

---

American Alpine Club Podcast · PROTECT: Vote the Crag This November

Embed Block

Add an embed URL or code. Learn more

Advocacy In Action: Reconciliation is Back!

In the midst of the action scoping out the exposure below. AAC member Savannah Cummins

By AAC Advocacy and Gov’t Affairs Manager, Amelia Howe

This article originally appeared in Summit Register 005.

I know what you are thinking, but no, you are not having a deja vu moment. There is momentum building behind the reconciliation package, but this time, it’s focused solely on climate and conservation investments. We need you and the collective climbing community to write to your lawmakers in support of these critical climate investments in order to get this passed and enacted into law as soon as possible.

The American Alpine Club and other organizations like the Outdoor Alliance spent a lot of time in 2021 educating our members and advocating for the passage of a major social spending package, better known as the Build Back Better Act. While the original package was full of things like universal pre-K and affordable healthcare, the AAC worked to support this package due to the myriad investments that would address the climate crisis and improve public lands infrastructure. Summit Register 004 contains an article outlining how this package fell apart right before the New Year due to Congress’ inability to reach a consensus surrounding the importance of these investments. This political rollercoaster led many to believe that there was no hope for the passage of Build Back Better. Now that lawmakers are back from winter break and diving into a midterm election season, it is clear that hope remains for important aspects of Build Back Better. There is especially exciting potential for the $555 billion to be invested in climate and public lands provisions.

---

Some of these provisions include efforts to:

+  Conserve threatened landscapes

+  Create climate adaptation plans within the Forest Service so they can better address how changing temperatures are impacting natural resources

+  Dedicate additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) resources for agencies

+  Better resource wildfire planning and response

+  Address and reform fossil fuel development processes on public lands

+  Fund climate resilience projects on public lands

+  Invest in urban parks and trail systems

+  Increase access to public lands and trails

+  Create a Civilian Climate Corps

---

PC: AAC member Calder Davey

Climate change and aging public lands infrastructure should be at the top of mind for climbers when it comes to issues to address and advocate for in 2022. From a climber’s perspective, changes in climate will undoubtedly impact access to climbing and will, in turn, negatively impact the recreation economy. Inconsistent and longer wildfire seasons impact access to outdoor climbing opportunities during the summer and fall, and ice routes that once were classic are now rarely seen. It is easy to identify how our collective inability to act on climate will impact the sport. But the impacts of climate change touch every aspect of life, and these impacts on climbing are only a small piece of why these investments are so important.

An investment of this nature could change the trajectory of the US’ response on climate change, and the impacts will be deeply felt at the local community level. If you are excited about the prospect of these critical investments in climate action and public lands restoration, this is the moment to let your lawmakers know.



Durango Climbers Join Forces

A Cornerstone Conservation Grant Story

By Luke Mehall, Publisher of The Climbing Zine

& Taylor Luneau, AAC Policy Manager

This article originally appeared in Summit Register 005.

Grant Perdue feeling the water below on Close to the Edge, 5.11+ at Cascade Canyon. AAC member Will McKay

The Durango Climbers Coalition (DCC) started with a single issue: we wanted to secure a local beloved sport and ice climbing crag called Cascade Canyon. We had learned that the land—which contains challenging limestone sport climbing, our only local ice climbing, and a beautiful waterfall—was located on private property.

Cascade Canyon is home to one of the most aesthetic climbs in Southwestern Colorado: Close to the Edge. Climbers drop into the deep canyon before traversing under a wide collection of technical roof climbs until eventually reaching Cascade Creek, where the pumpy 11c emerges from the water. In the winter, climbers cross the frozen creek to a small but challenging group of ice pillars and mixed climbs. On the best days, you can lace up your ice boots for a few pitches of ice before crossing the river once more to round out your day with a couple rock routes, basking in the Coloradan sun. Few climbing areas offer such a bounty for the climbing community—no matter the season.

How could we secure this land for public use forever? This question led us down a rabbit hole of climbing activism.

Since then, we’ve realized that the Durango climbing community has several issues that need to be addressed, ranging from trail work needs to organizing cleanups of graffiti and trash. But for local climbing organizations like the DCC to successfully manage these kinds of concerns, they need ample resources. Enter our application for the American Alpine Club Cornerstone Conservation Grant.

As much as Cascade Canyon needs protection, some of our other local climbing areas need some love. Animas Mountain, which contains several different climbing zones, and is a mere five minutes from downtown Durango, is at the top of the list. Bouldering is the main attraction with hundreds of blocks scattered in a zone climbers call Sailing Hawks. On the opposite side of the mountain rests X-Rock, containing an assortment of introductory routes and home to Durango’s local sandstone tower, perched high above the Animas River Valley. Excellent running and mountain biking trails provide access to the mountain’s summit and some of the city’s most aesthetic viewpoints.

Anika Bach enjoying her climb up X-Rock in Durango, CO. Land of the Diné Bikéyah, Pueblos, and Ute peoples. Grumpyhighlander photography

Last year, X-Rock was vandalized with several hundred square feet of graffiti, which led to a mobilization of the climbing community to clean it up. We’d previously teamed up with the City of Durango to clean up graffiti at Sailing Hawks, so we had a little bit of experience. This incident sparked action and built community, and the DCC led the way. After eight hours of effort, we restored the sweeping red walls of this scenic climbing area with the help of 18 local climbers, city and county officials, and a Colorado Springs based non-profit, Keeping Colorado Beautiful.

The problems with X-Rock were not over after the cleanup. Irresponsible public lands users have been trashing the area, leaving behind used needles, other forms of trash, and in one case, a gun.

The need for the grant was clear. Trail work and signage would be crucial as we fight to keep this public land safe and sustainable for climbers and other nature lovers. The 5k grant from the AAC will significantly assist with this endeavor. We will formalize the area with a climbers’ kiosk, reinforce eroded approach trails, and direct new climbers to their day’s objective with additional tail signage. This effort would not be achievable without the AAC’s support, along with the City of Durango and La Plata County.

We’ve had some progress on assisting with securing future access to Cascade Canyon. At the same time, we’ve realized the need for the Durango Climbers Coalition as an organization. This need will outlast any current member, and we are here to do the good work, with a lot of help from our friends at the American Alpine Club!

---

Updates From Your Policy Team: The Climber's Advocacy Network

By Advocacy and Gov’t Affairs Manager, Amelia Howe

This article originally appeared in Summit Register 005.

Warming light near Sedona, AZ. Land of the Hohokam, Hopitutskwa, Yavapaiv Apache, and Jumanos peoples. AAC member Jeremiah Watt

At the American Alpine Club, it is no secret that the power of our policy and advocacy work is fueled by passionate climbers from across the country. They may be the policy chair of their local chapter, long-term AAC volunteers taking initiative to get involved in a climbing management plan, an AAC member flagging an issue happening at their local crag, or a climber hoping to learn how to create impact in their community. Regardless of who the individual may be or how they are connected to the Club, climbers are deeply engaged in policy and advocacy. We believe that change happens when everyday climbers unite around a shared cause and are positioned to advocate for the interests of their community. Therefore, over the past several months, the AAC policy department has been cultivating the inaugural Climbers’ Advocacy Network (CAN).

There has been a lot of impactful policy and advocacy work happening in AAC chapters across the country. We hope to be better allies of these individuals and provide them with the education and resources they need to be more effective in their local communities. To kickstart the program, we observed where this work was already happening and where volunteers were most excited to engage in policy and advocacy efforts. Through interviews with climbers and gathering data from our Annual Climber’s Survey, we landed on these initial hubs: California, Colorado, D.C., Georgia, New England, Utah, and Washington.

We are in the process of recruiting volunteer teams and creating a Climbers’ Advocacy Curriculum. This curriculum will enable our climbing advocate volunteers to enhance their policy and advocacy skillsets and ultimately take on projects in their local communities.

---

The Ultimate Dream for the CAN:

Meadows in Yosemite National Park, CA. Land of the Me-Wuk and Numu peoples. AAC member Jeremiah Watt

+  Each AAC section and chapter has a CAN Chair or Policy Chair that will work closely with their local chapter, the AAC HQ, their local climbing organization, and other coalition partners to build conservation and climate capacity on a local level.

+  They will create campaign plans to address issues that matter most to climbers in their regions.

+  Campaigns + projects will be different from place to place because each community is unique and has its own strengths and weaknesses.

+  Projects could look like rallying climber support for a new Office of the Outdoors in your state or hosting voter registration nights at their local gym.

What ideas do you have for building local impact in your climbing community?

---

From our office in Golden, we know that we don’t have adequate context to tell our members what issues they should care about in their communities. It is critical that we listen to folks on the ground to find out how to best support critical climate and conservation work across the country, and that’s where you come in. Do you live in one of our CAN kickoff states and want to get involved? Let us know here.

---

Climber’s Advocacy Network Crag Tour

Stunning ambiance of Dead Horse Point, UT. Land of the Ute people. AAC member Jeremiah Watt

---

Damon Yeh

CAN Hub: California

What are your local climbing spots?

I currently live in San Diego, CA, and you can usually find me at the Mesa Rim climbing gyms. On weekends, I try to make my way out to Joshua Tree NP, but if I only have a half-day free, Mt. Woodson is one of my favorite spots.

How would you describe your relationship with climbing?

Climbing has provided me with many opportunities and helped me build a lot of meaningful relationships. I am less interested in pushing grades. Rather, I find joy in exploring nature and hanging out with the people I care about.

If there was a book written about you and climbing, what would it be called?

“Never Too Proud to Top Rope!”

Are there any particular issues you think your region will be focused on at this point?

Shingo Ohkawa bouldering in Joshua Tree National Park, CA. Land of the Western Shoshone and Serrano peoples. AAC member Andrew Burr

There is a lot to cover in the state of California! Fifty-two percent of the state is public land, and the vast majority is federal land. I am most concerned about making sure everyone has equitable access to nature. Not everyone feels they have a place on our public lands or that they have a voice in how we manage them. My goal is to break down barriers for everyone to get more involved with our public lands.

Why should climbers in your region volunteer with you to build CAN Capacity?

Climbers should volunteer with me because I want everyone to have a seat at the table. California is a big state, and we need all hands on deck to build a sustainable and equitable future!

---

Elliot Becker

CAN Hub: Washington D.C.

What are your local climbing spots?

I’m living in the Brookland neighborhood of Washington, D.C. My home crags are Seneca Rocks and the New River Gorge.

How would you describe your relationship with climbing?

I really love all aspects of climbing. While my favorite is long rock routes, the advent of COVID and the arrival of a new baby have turned me into a more dedicated boulderer of late.

Why are you excited to gain more advocacy and policy skills?

I’ve long taken the view that whatever you care about, you should organize to improve. I care a lot about climbing, so I want to do what I can to enhance the situation here. I’m particularly looking forward to increasing my ability to talk to elected leaders.

The New River Gorge. Land of the Moneton, Tutelo, Yuchi, and Shawandasse Tula peoples. AAC member Francois Lebeau

Are there any particular issue areas you think your region will be focused on at this point?

The D.C. area has a lot of people and not a lot of good rock, so we need to do what we can to improve and maintain access throughout the region. We need to be alert to any opportunities to expand access and any threats to access while also improving organization and infrastructure to support higher numbers.

---

Reese Rogers

CAN Hub: Georgia

What are your local climbing spots?

I live in Decatur, GA, just east of Atlanta. I boulder at Boat Rock in Atlanta and enjoy the crags around Chattanooga like Tennessee Wall and Foster Falls. I also climb at Stone Summit gyms in the Atlanta area.

How would you describe your relationship with climbing?

For me, climbing is a way to experience landscapes from a new perspective and a reason to explore my local region and learn more about it. I was an avid backpacker before I was a climber, and climbing initially appealed to me when I realized I could go up mountains instead of just walking around them. This exploration aspect of climbing is essential to me and part of the reason I enjoy everything from bouldering to ski mountaineering.

Why are you excited to gain more advocacy and policy skills?

Squeezing their way up Bumboy (V3) during the Float the Boat compeition at Boat Rock in Atlanta, GA. Land of the Muscogee and East Cherokee peoples. Kate Okenatez-Mahoney

I’ve worked on energy and climate issues throughout my career. It has always been difficult to disentangle discussions around energy production, climate change, public lands management, and, increasingly, outdoor recreation. I am glad to see the AAC wrestling with these larger issues that affect this passion of ours, and I want to contribute to these discussions more. The opportunity to learn advocacy skills alongside others who share a passion for climbing is a big motivator. Climbing definitely heightened my awareness of local public lands management issues and specific climate change impacts globally.

Are there any particular issue areas you think your region will be focused on at this point?

Access and awareness of climbers as a user group seem to be perennial issues in the Southeast. We don’t have large swaths of federal public lands in the South (at least with climbing), so much of the climbing is in state-managed parks or on private lands where access has been negotiated with the landowner. Fortunately, we have amazing LCOs in the Southeastern Climbers Coalition and the Carolina Climbers Coalition. They do great work creating and maintaining access and promoting stewardship. As climbers grow as a user group, we will need to ensure that state and regional policies and resources match the increasing use of these typically under-resourced areas.

---

Alma Baste

CAN Hub: Utah

What are your local climbing spots?

I just moved to Salt Lake City! So I guess Little Cottonwood Canyon would now be my local crag.

How would you describe your relationship with climbing?

Complicated. It’s definitely a love/hate relationship somedays. Overall though, I really love the sport. I love the community, and the way you can meet new people and make friends regardless of where you live. I’ve met so many new people during my solo sessions at Rocktown. Beyond that, I love the mobilization climbers have in terms of stewardship and advocacy. When we’re really passionate and care about something, we go for it with the same intensity that we have for pursuing climbing objectives.

If there was a book written about you and climbing, what would it be called?

“The Ghost at Nose Candy”—I’ve had several people recognize me from working that boulder so much this past season; it’s almost embarrassing, but it is a magnificent boulder. And I love spooky stuff.

Why are you excited to gain more advocacy and policy skills?

My first trip to Indian Creek was shortly before it became part of Bears Ears National Monument. After the monument was rescinded, I became more and more aware of the need for advocacy surrounding climbing areas. Since then, I’ve pursued a master’s degree in Environmental Policy. The Climber’s Advocacy Network seemed like an excellent opportunity to gain even more skills, especially outside of a university, and focus on more local issues—like getting climbing included in management plans for different wilderness areas.

Jimmy Keithley, Vultures are Waiting 5.8,
The Cobblehorn, City Creek Canyon, UT. Land of the Goshute and Eastern Shoshone peoples. AAC member Andrew Burr

Are there any particular issue areas you think your region will be focused on at this point?

I’m still learning the SLC issues and building connections with local stakeholders like the Salt Lake Climbers Alliance, but I know the threat of a gondola or road expansion projects in Little Cottonwood Canyon has been a big subject lately. Both projects result in the destruction of popular bouldering areas throughout the canyon. Neither of them does much to improve the issue they intend to solve.

Why should climbers in your region volunteer with you to build CAN Capacity?

Because I can’t do this alone! And while I am incredibly obsessed with Utah, I’m by no means a local and would love to have the expertise of someone who’s been here far longer than me.

---

Daniel Kroth

CAN Hub: New England

What are your local climbing spots?

I live in Cambridge, MA. Brooklyn Boulders Sommerville is my local gym.

How would you describe your relationship with climbing?

I think many climbers like to solve puzzles on and off the wall, test themselves physically, and explore the edges of their comfort zone. Like most of us, I feel as though my life can largely be divided into intellectual, physical, and emotional or expressive pursuits. One of the things I love most about getting outside to climb is combining these three facets of myself to approach new challenges.

Why are you excited to gain more advocacy and policy skills?

A beautiful day to boulder with Kai Lightner at the Gunks in New York. Land of the Munsee Lenape People. AAC member Chris Vultaggio

I’m excited because this stuff matters! I was able to build a meaningful connection to the outdoors in large part because easy access and low costs made it possible for my family to get outside. I want to build the skills necessary to help preserve this access and expand it to others.

Are there any particular issue areas you think your region will be focused on at this point?

Here in the Northeast, I think we have an excellent opportunity to advocate for equitable access to outdoor recreation. Of course, climate change awareness will be of paramount importance across the Club. With popular support for both initiatives in our region, we’re well-positioned to make an impact.

Why should climbers in your region volunteer with you to build CAN capacity?

Whether you’re in the area for school or grew up with a local crag, this group can help you build the skills and connections to advocate for issues important to you. We’re looking for teammates to think through the issues, keep a finger on the pulse of the local climbing community, and connect ideas to advocacy.

---

The AAC Offers Insights into the proposed Joshua Tree NP Climbing Management Plan

Alex Honnold, Factor Figure (5.13b), Joshua Tree National Park, CA. PC: Andrew Burr

March 13, 2022 

NPS Joshua Tree National Park 

RE: Scoping Comments on Joshua Tree Climbing Management Plan 

The American Alpine Club (“AAC”) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments for the  scoping period on the climbing management plan (“CMP”) currently underway in Joshua Tree  National Park (“JTNP”). JTNP is a world class destination for rock climbing and attracts many  of the AAC’s 25,000 members nationwide to climb and enjoy the Wilderness resources in the  JTNP. For more than a decade, the AAC has engaged in climbing management in the JTNP and  values the efforts of the National Park Service (“NPS”) to steward the abundant and unique  resources of JTNP. The CMP will be critical in managing the ecological, cultural, and natural  resources of the JTNP, especially as more people recreate in the outdoors and the population of  climbers continues to grow. The AAC looks forward to working with the NPS to steward these  important resources for generations to come and support their endeavor to create an informed  CMP. 

I. The American Alpine Club 

The AAC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Golden, Colorado, with over 25,000  members nationally. Founded in 1902 to support the research and exploration of mountainous  regions, the AAC remains committed to supporting the climbing and human-powered outdoor  

recreation communities over a century later. Grounded in community and location, the AAC’s  mission is to share and support members’ passion for climbing and respect for the places they  climb. Through education, community gatherings, stewardship, policy, advocacy, and scientific  research, the AAC strives to build a united community of competent climbers and healthy  climbing landscapes. 

II. Comments and Concerns 

The AAC’s volunteer base are large contributors to the success of the AAC. Across the nation,  the AAC engages hundreds of volunteers in policy, advocacy, and education through the 25  sections and 56 chapters of the organization. The AAC comments and concerns mentioned here  are informed by volunteer leaders of the AAC’s San Diego Chapter and the Sierra Nevada  Section.

A. The AAC is concerned with the NPS’s understanding and treatment of the Wilderness Act of 1964 (“Wilderness Act”). 

The AAC supports the efforts by JTNP to thoughtfully balance the needs of the American public  to access and enjoy primitive and unconfined recreation with the protection of Wilderness  characteristics and other natural resources found within JTNP. With more than 6,500 individual  climbing routes, a long and rich history of climbing, and a unique but fragile high desert  landscape, JTNP is a world renown climbing destination attracting climbers of all abilities 

The AAC is concerned with JTNP’s understanding and treatment of the Wilderness Act’s  meaning and particularly their definition of "fixed anchors” as “installations.” Fixed anchors  (which include bolts, pitons, nuts, slings, or any other equipment) are necessary climbing  equipment and fundamental for the safety of the climbing community, both on the ascent and  descent of technical climbing terrain. 

In crafting the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congress established the National Wilderness  Preservation System.(1) The plain language of the Wilderness Act protects and manages for those  places which have “outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of  recreation.”(2) Additionally, the Wilderness Act requires that such areas “shall be devoted to  public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.”(3)  As one of the federal land management agencies tasked with overseeing the management of  wilderness areas, the NPS must “administer[ing] such area(s) for such other purposes for which  it may have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character.”(4) Therefore, Congress’  objective was to administer wilderness areas “for the use and enjoyment of the American people  in such a manner as will be unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness.” (5) 

The AAC encourages the JTNP to use their existing authorization under the 2013 Director’s  Order # 41 (“DO#41”) for the appropriate management of Wilderness climbing rather than  changing its understanding of the Wilderness Act’s definition. DO#41 is an order written to  guide servicewide efforts for the NPS in meeting the requirements for the Wilderness Act (16  U.S.C. 1131-1136).6 DO#41 recognizes climbing as “a legitimate and appropriate use of  Wilderness” and noted that “[t]he occasional placement of a fixed anchor for belay, rappel, or  protection purposes does not necessarily impair the future enjoyment of Wilderness or violate the  Wilderness Act.”(7) 

Therefore, the DO#14 does not prohibit fixed anchor installations, nor does it require Minimum  Requirement Analysis (“MRA”) for the placement, removal or maintenance of fixed anchors for  recreational climbing. A new Wilderness Act interpretation, akin to the current scoping CMP, does not align with the United States federal policy and practice, and lacks public participation and political process. 

To both preserve the wilderness character8 of Wilderness Areas and to accommodate necessary  opportunities for primitive and unconfined type of recreation, tangible and intangible qualities  should be considered. Intangible qualities include biophysical environments, personal  experiences, and symbolic meanings, whereas tangible qualities include natural, undeveloped,  untrammeled.(9) These components have inherent tension and require balanced management  strategies that are challenging to develop and implement. In recognition of this complex  mandate, the AAC supports climbing practices that minimize the human impact on the  environment and, in addition, promotes Wilderness climbing as an appropriate and suitable use  of Wilderness. These practices are aimed to reduce the human influence on the landscape,  preserve the Wilderness visitor experience, and to promote appropriate (and not undue)  regulation of climbing in accordance with the Wilderness Act. 

The AAC is concerned that the new interpretation of the Wilderness Act by JTNP unnecessarily  frustrates historical use patterns of climbing in the JTNP, confuses Wilderness climbing  management policies, sets a concerning national precedent, creates serious safety concerns for  the climbing community, and erodes the climbing communities’ ability to support future  Wilderness designations. For these reasons, we encourage JTNP to focus on implementing  current NPS management policies, support more robust climber education programs, engage in  further resource stewardship, and capitalize on more opportunities to work with non-profit  partners to resolve climbing-related management issues. 

B. JTNP’s interpretation of the Wilderness Act departs from national policy guidance and  sets concerning precedent for Wilderness climbing resources. 

The use of fixed anchors to facilitate climbing in remote backcountry locations predates the  enactment of the Wilderness Act by several decades. More importantly, both federal agencies,  the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture, as well as notable Wilderness  advocacy organizations, have long understood fixed anchors to be appropriate in Wilderness.  The AAC has long supported the consistency between federal agencies regarding the  management of fixed anchors in Wilderness. For the NPS, DO#41 provides consistency and  predictability for the climbing community within the NPS Wilderness Areas. 

The JTNP’s CMP proposal is in opposition to decades of management policy regarding fixed  anchors in various federal areas, including in other NPS managed Wilderness Areas. This is in direct contrast to the public process and stakeholder input approved by the Director of the NPS in  2013, who issued DO#41 “to provide accountability, consistency, and continuity in the [NPS]  wilderness stewardship program, and to guide servicewide efforts in meeting the requirements of  the Wilderness Act.” (10)

It is also important to note that in the past the NPS has not questioned or misinterpreted “fixed  anchors” to be “prohibited installations” under the Wilderness Act, Section 4(c).(11) The 1993  Joshua Tree CMP(12) and the 2000 Joshua Tree Backcountry Management Plan(13) have also  explicitly considered fixed anchors, and chosen not to define them as prohibited installations nor  to necessitate an MRA use for purposes of placement or replacement (although it does require  MRA for administrative purposes such as search and rescue). 

The AAC has partnered with other national climbing organizations and wilderness groups to support this policy and has acknowledged the necessity for fixed anchors in Wilderness Areas to  provide foundational safety for climbers. As stated in the DO#41, “[t]he occasional placement of  a fixed anchor for belay, rappel, or protection purposes does not necessarily impair the future  enjoyment of Wilderness or violate the Wilderness Act.”(14) Importantly, the AAC appreciates  DO#41’s focus on the impacts of high use levels, the types of impacts those use levels cause, and  the resulting effects on wilderness character. This approach focuses management solutions on  the measurable and objective impacts of climbing routes on wilderness character. This approach  is preferable to a blanket determination that fixed anchors are installations. 

C. The AAC supports the JTNP’s efforts to protect and promote appropriate use of  Wilderness. 

The AAC supports efforts by the JTNP to thoughtfully balance the needs of the public to access  and enjoy primitive and unconfined recreation with the protection of Wilderness characteristics  and other natural resources found within the JTNP.  

In partnership with the Access Fund, The Wilderness Society, National Parks Conservation  Association, and the American Mountain Guide Association, the AAC shared comments and  support for the development of DO#41, as well as Resource Manual #41 during thier creation.  The AAC supports appropriate regulations and restrictions on fixed anchors in Wilderness,  including the principle that fixed anchors should be “rare” in Wilderness. Furthermore, the AAC  supports the JTNP’s authority to manage fixed anchor placement in the Wilderness, including the prohibition of bolt-intensive climbs that exhibit high levels of use and measurable impacts to the  JTNP resources and social conditions.(15) 

The AAC supports the prohibition on the use of power drills in wilderness, mandatory  authorization (per DO#41) for the placement of fixed anchors, and management of other aspects  of recreational use like trails and human waste management. NPS can do more to protect  Wilderness character by focusing its limited resources on these management issues rather than  reviewing every existing fixed anchor within wilderness. 

D. The ACC agrees with DO#41, Section 7.2, stating that climbing is a legitimate,  appropriate, and historical use of Wilderness. 

The Wilderness climbing experience is unique, as it provides opportunities for solitude,  primitive, and unconfined recreation. Climbing and the use of fixed anchors is a legitimate,  appropriate, and historical use of Wilderness that is compatible with the Wilderness Act. 

a. Climbing is a “historical use” in the JTNP. 

The Wilderness Act requires that Wilderness Areas “shall be devoted to public purposes of  ….historical use.”(16) The JTNP has a long and rich history of climbing dating as early as the 1940’s.(17) Early trips organized by the Sierra Club’s Rock Climbing Section and the Boy Scouts  brought young adults to the JTNP to experience the vastness of the recently designated Joshua  Tree National Monument (“National Monument”) and to practice the craft of rock climbing in a  group setting.(18) 

Figure 1: Dick Webster completing the most challenging moves in the route (also known as “crux” moves) along the Southwest Corner of Headstone Rock, a climbing route that was first completed in 1958 by Mark Powell. Note the  bolt used for protection in the foreground.(21) 

Photo: Wolf & Dominick, 1976. 

By the 1950’s, more advanced climbers and mountaineers (including notable individuals like Royal Robbins and Yvon Choinard) began taking frequent trips to the National Monument to  climb. It was in this decade that notable first ascents of many of the National Monument’s  formations occurred, including the West Chimney of Intersection Rock in 1953 by Jerry  Gallawas and Barbara Lilly, as well as the Lost Pencil by Don Cornell and John Merriam, the  Popes Hat by Don Cornell and Rod Smith, and the Wedge by Bob Boyle, all in 1956.(19) Applying interesting tactics, Bob Boyle and Rod Smith managed to first reach the summit of  Headstone Rock in 1956 by climbing a rope which they had successfully thrown over the top of  the formation.(20)

By the time President Gerald Ford signed Public Law 94-567 in 1976, designating the bulk of the National Monument as Wilderness, several hundred climbing routes, and at least 101 routes  which utilized the placement of fixed anchors, were already established in the National  Monument following nearly 30 years of use from climbers. (22,23)

As climbing grew throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, so to did the tools and techniques of modern climbing practices. While many climbers continued to apply aid climbing techniques  (placing pitons, small chocks, and nylon ladders to ascend the rock face), the emergence of free  climbing (only using their hands and feet to climb while placing some pieces of traditional gear  or clipping bolts for protection) revolutionized the sport. The use of bolts and fixed anchors, however, were deemed a necessary and accepted tool by the climbing community. Although, the placement was considered a “grave responsibility” and local ethics dictated that some routes  should be completed without bolts, or with as few as possible. (24) 

Figure 2: A climber uses a hand drill to install a bolt on a route called Duchess at the Feudal Wall. First ascent  February 1974 by Chris Gonzales and Rob Stahl. Photo: Wolf & Dominick, 1976. 

In designating the bulk of the National Monument as a new Wilderness Area, Congress  recognized the primitive and unconfined recreation opportunities that existed in the National  Monument, not the least of which were the abundant and well-known rock climbing resources.  Climbing would continue to grow in the National Monument throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s  as the climbing community recognized this special landscape as a national treasure. In 1994,  Congress took another step to protect the National Monument with the passage of Public Law  103-433, adding 234,000 acres to the National Monument and changing its status to a National  Park. (25)

Today, the JTNP has over 6,500 individual climbing routes scattered throughout the nearly  800,000 acres and the climbing community is full of staunch supporters of the stewardship and  protection of this unique and historical climbing resource. 

b. Climbing is “a legitimate and appropriate use of Wilderness” in the JTNP. 

DO#41 explicitly mentions climbing as “a legitimate and appropriate use of wilderness.”(26) It defines climbing management, allowing for the use, maintenance, and replacement of fixed anchors in Wilderness Areas. Fixed anchors are necessary for safe Wilderness climbing when ascending a route, descending from a summit, or responding to an emergency. Fixed anchors are also resource protection tools that minimize climbing impacts, such as facilitating a technical  descent rather than walking an exit trail causing erosion and impacts to vegetation. 

E. JTNP’s proposed CMP raises serious concerns for the wellbeing and safety of the  climbing community. 

Climbing in the Wilderness long predates the passage of the Wilderness Act. Values of solitude,  challenge, primitive, and unconfined recreation, and self-reliance are born from Wilderness  climbing experiences. In the human mind, Wilderness climbing symbolically represents  challenge, perseverance, humility, restraint, and interdependence with the natural world. These  are the values that define Wilderness experience, the symbolism that surround it, and epitomize  the human dimensions of the Wilderness Act. The AAC deeply values the protection of  Wilderness, as it provides the lifeblood of true traditional climbing and vertical adventure. 

During the JTNP’s February 8, 2022 CMP meeting, planners opposed fixed anchor replacements  for bolt-intensive routes because they believe that are unacceptable in the Wilderness. While the  AAC agrees that Wilderness should not be sport climbing arenas and that bolt intensive climbs  may facilitate unacceptable impacts on wilderness resources, caused by the aggregation of  human use, they strongly disagree with the NPS conclusion regarding bolt replacement. It is  very dangerous and misguided to leave aged fixed anchors in place because they have the  potential to lead to life-threatening results (see Exhibit A). The AAC does, however, support  that if a climbing route is unacceptable in Wilderness because it threatens sensitive cultural or  natural resources and/or attracts unacceptable use-levels, it may be considered for closure to the  public. The JTNP should consider other options to manage Wilderness climbing, as the current  CMP proposal threatens the climbing community’s safety, not only in the JTNP, but across the  country. 

The AAC opposes any policy that creates obstacles for the Good Samaritans that volunteer time,  effort, and resources to replace antiquated or unsafe hardware (see Exhibit A: Figures 3-6).  Ultimately, this would have the effect of restricting climbers’ access to many of the most iconic  climbs in JTNP and other park units across the country, cause significant uncertainty for  climbers who have historically relied on such anchors, and send the message that climbers are  not welcome in Wilderness. 

III. Conclusion 

Climbers and members of the AAC have advocated for the protection of Wilderness for more  than 60 years and were even advocates for the very creation of the Wilderness Act itself. David  R. Brower, alpinist and lifetime member of the AAC who served as the organization's Vice  President from 1956-58, contributed substantially to the establishment of sound global  environmental practices and the conservation of many of America’s wild landscapes. Brower  epitomizes the conservation ethic shared by many in the climbing community to conserve  Wilderness areas, like Rick Reese, Peter Metcalf, Yvon Choinard, Rick Ridgway, Doug Thompkins and others. 

The AAC is concerned that JTNP’s proposed CMP will deter climbers from supporting critical  conservation initiatives and alienate climbers from their Wilderness roots. Many of the greatest  conservation gains during the 21st Century are a direct result of the collaboration between the  human-powered outdoor recreation and conservation communities. 

The proposed JTNP CMP will affect the public’s opinion of the need for conservation and have a  negative and direct impact on the future of public lands. Undoubtedly, the newly proposed fixed  anchor policy by JTNP will have implications for other Wilderness climbing areas across the  country. This will undermine the support from climbing communities with future Wilderness  designations and inherently frustrate their ability to enjoy Wilderness experiences through  primitive and unconfined recreational climbing. 

Furthermore, place-based management is the most appropriate in NPS Wilderness due to  diversity of wilderness resource, climbing resources, visitor preferences, motivation, skill, and  amount of visitation. (27) 

We hope that the JTNP will reconsider its CMP proposal and, instead, determine the best path  forward is to manage recreational climbing in accordance with DO#41 - to protect wilderness  character utilizing the many policy tools available today. The AAC is ready and willing to assist  the NPS to deliver on their dual mandate of conserving Wilderness characteristics while also  ensuring the benefit and enjoyment of the JTNP for the broader public.  

We welcome further discussion as your process moves forward.

Respectfully submitted, 

Taylor Luneau 

Policy Manager, American Alpine Club 

CC: 

Jamie Logan, Interim-CEO, American Alpine Club 

Amelia Howe, Advocacy and Government Affairs Manager, American Alpine Club

Shane Johnson, Chief Marketing Officer, American Alpine Club

Damon Yeh, California Advocacy Network Chair, American Alpine Club

Erik Murdock, VP Government Affairs and Policy, Access Fund

Katie Goodwin, Policy Analyst and California Regional Director, Access Fund

EXHIBIT A 

Figure 3: An old ⅜ inch plated steel bolt that was  removed and replaced by a climber in Western  Colorado. Note the rust on the bolt sleeve. 

Figure 4: A dangerous old homemade aluminum L stock hanger used on the first ascent of a climb in  Southwest Colorado. These types of bolts are in need  of a safer replacement with new age ½ inch steel  bolts. 

Figure 5: Hanger associated with bolt in Figure 3.  The work of local climbing organizations to replace  these requires an abundance of knowledge, time, and  passion. Local climbing community experts are  instrumental in the upkeep of bolts and other fixed  anchors. 

Figure 6: A bolted belay station on a climb in Red  Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. Note the  older bolts adjacent to the three new ones.

---

1 The Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. ch. 23 § 1131. 

2Id. 

3Id. at §1133(b). 

4Id. 

5Id. 

6 2013 NPS Director’s Order #41: Wilderness Stewardship. 

7Id.

8Id. at Section 6.2. 

9 Mchugh, Katherine. (2019). Wilderness Rock Climbing Indicators and Climbing Management Implications in the  National Park Service. Graduate Student Thesis, Dissertations, & Professional Papers.

10 Director’s Order #41. 

11 16 U.S.C. ch. 23 § 1131 et seq. Section 4(c). 

12 NPS. Joshua Tree National Monument Climbing Management Plan. 1993. Available at:  https://www.nps.gov/jotr/getinvolved/upload/JOTR_ClimbingManagementPlan1993.pdf. 13 U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service. Superintendent’s Annual Report. 2001. Joshua Tree National  Park. Available at: http://npshistory.com/publications/annual_reports/jotr/2001.pdf. 

14 Director’s Order #41.

15 Id. 

16 16 U.S.C. § 1133(b). 

17 Kane, Jenny. 2017. Landscape of Belonging: Joshua Tree’s Climbing Legacy. Available at:  https://mojaveproject.org/dispatches-item/landscape-of-belonging/. 

18 Kane, Jenny. 2017. 

19 Wolf, John & Dominick, Bob. 1976. A Climber’s Guide to Joshua Tree National Monument. Desert Rats  Uninhibited Publication. 

20 Wolf & Dominick. 1976.

21 Id. 

22 Public Law 94-567, October 20, 1976. 

23 A cursory review of John Wolf and Bob Dominick’s 1976 guidebook, titled “A Climber’s Guide To Joshua Tree  National Monument,” revealed that 101 total routes (which included at least 1 bolt or fixed anchor) were established  prior to the 1976 Wilderness designation and rappel anchors were installed on at least six of the National  Monument’s popular rock formations. This number would likely grow with additional data collection from the 1979  edition and other publications, such as Randy Vogel’s “Joshua Tree Climbs: 1,000 of the Best Climbs in Joshua  Tree National Park.”

24 Id. 

25 Public Law 103-433. October 31, 1994.

26 Director’s Order #41.

27 Murdock, E. (2004). Understanding Recreation Flow to Protect Wilderness Resources at Joshua Tree National Park, California (Masters thesis). Available from Working Papers of the Finnish Forest Research Institute 2, Rovaniemi, Finland.
Murdock, E. (2010). Perspectives on Rock Climbing Fixed Anchors Through the Lens of the Wilderness Act: Social, Legal and Environmental Implications at Joshua Tree National Park, California (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona.

Barnett, Eve S. (2016). Beware of the Cold, Clammy Hand of Consistency: Rock climbing policy and the surprising success of the National Park Service. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University.
Sullivan, Kerry E. (2018). Interpretation and Implementation of Director’s Order #41, Section 7.2: Determining best management practices for Wilderness climbing in National Parks. Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 11139.

Letter to Utah Gov. Cox: Protect the Antiquities Act + Public Lands

Chris Schulte squeezing his way up Airwolf (V6). Photo by AAC member Dawn Kish

February 8, 2022

The Honorable Spencer Cox
Governor
State Capitol
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

Dear Governor Cox, 

On behalf of our 1,000 members in the state of Utah, and our 25,000 members nationally, the American Alpine Club (AAC) is writing to express our immense concern with your office's hiring of a law firm for the purposes of litigating the protections afforded via national monument designation to both Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante while simultaneously soliciting the Outdoor Retailer show to return to your state’s capitol. 

The AAC is a century-old, national non-profit organization that supports the climbing and human-powered outdoor recreation communities through education, community gatherings, stewardship, policy, advocacy, and scientific research. Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments are significant not only for our members who enjoy the climbing and other recreational opportunities afforded by these unique landscapes, but also for their extensive cultural and ecological values that have been cherished by Tribes such as the Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, and Ute Tribe for time immemorial. It is for these reasons we advocated for the restoration of these monuments, following their reduction during the Trump Administration, and celebrated when the Biden-Harris Administration made the profoundly important decision to honor the voices of Indigenous communities, climbers, and conservationists by reinstating their protections.

Our advocacy over the years has been clear - we oppose any action aimed at weakening the efficacy of the Antiquities Act or any other bedrock environmental law that protects our nation’s lands and waters. With more than 100,000 Native American cultural sites, countless scientific and historical objects, and several thousand individual rock climbs that attract climbers from across the globe, we believe that the proper care and management of these objects accurately reflects the size of the monuments as designated by the Biden Administration.

More than that, these protections are in line with the Biden Administration’s America the Beautiful initiative, which aims to tackle the climate crises at home and abroad by conserving 30% of land and water by 2030. Ensuring these landscapes are protected helps our country address not only the climate and extinction crises, but it bolsters recreation-based economies which rely on public lands as the infrastructure for activities like climbing.

While we find it egregious that your office would consider filing a lawsuit against the Federal Government to remove protections from these sacred, wild, and recreation rich landscapes, we do not share this note as a boycott of the State of Utah or the return of the Outdoor Retailer to the Beehive state. Salt Lake City is home to one of the largest climbing communities in the country, and the state to that of some of our nation's most significant and historical climbing areas. Access to the outdoors attracts many of our members to live and work in Utah, and is certainly a reason amongst many in our community for bringing Outdoor Retailer back to the state. 

However, if your office moves forward with its intended litigation to erode protections afforded by the Antiquities Act to monuments in Utah (and potentially across the country), we will urge that the Outdoor Retailer show not return to UT, or boycott the show itself. We stand with our partners at The Conservation Alliance and Outdoor Alliance, who have already asked your office to respect our industry's values and the lands we cherish.

We urge you to take our request seriously and abandon your efforts to remove protections to Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments. Instead, we welcome you to join the outdoor industry in creating a strong and vibrant future for the public lands and outdoor recreation economies across the American West, one that values the perspectives of tribal, outdoor, conservation, and local communities as well as the majority of Utahns and Americans.

Thank you, 

Jamie Logan, AAC Interim-CEO

AAC Policy Committee Members:

Peter Metcalf
Pete Ward
Rob Deconto
Graham Zimmerman
Katie Stahley
Nina Williams

CC:

Taylor Luneau, AAC Policy Manager
Amelia Howe, AAC Advocacy and Government Affairs Manager
The Honorable Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Department of Interior
Herve Sedky, CEO, Emerald
Lise Aangenbrug, Executive Director, Outdoor Industry Association
Adam Cramer, Executive Director, Outdoor Alliance
Shoren Brown, Interim Executive Director, The Conservation Alliance
President Stuart Adams, UT State Senate
Speaker Brad Wilson, UT State House