A Long and Winding Road: An Update on the EXPLORE Recreation Package

PC: Andrew Burr

By: Byron Harvison, AAC General Counsel and Advocacy Director

First ascents are usually full of surprises. That’s why we love doing them. It takes every bit of your skill and experience to navigate all the known and unknown challenges the route throws at you. Like a FA, the first-of-its-kind EXPLORE Act Recreation Package is presenting challenges and proving there is more work to put in.  

You may recall that the EXPLORE Act (Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences) was unanimously passed in the House last April after being introduced by Representative Westerman (R-AR) and Representative Grijalva (D-AZ).  It contains several pieces of legislation deeply impacting recreation. The Simplifying Outdoor Access for Recreation Act (SOAR) has been a priority for the AAC and partner organizations such as the AMGA, Outdoor Alliance, and The Mountaineers for 10 years. It updates and streamlines recreational permitting for guides, making the outdoors more accessible.

EXPLORE also includes the Protecting America’s Rock Climbing Act (PARC), which the AAC and Access Fund have collaborated on extensively, that will help safeguard the historic use and maintenance of fixed anchors in Wilderness, and reaffirms the appropriateness of climbing on public lands.

Other elements in the package include the BOLT Act, making FICOR (the Federal Interagency Council on Outdoor Recreation) permanent as well as the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership, Recreation Not Red Tape, and several pieces of legislation impacting outdoor infrastructure.  

During our most recent visit to DC in September, in conjunction with the celebration of Outdoor Alliance’s 10th Anniversary, we teamed up to urge Senators to find floor time to pass EXPLORE as a stand alone bill or to attach it to must-pass legislation such as the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Unfortunately, EXPLORE did not make it into the NDAA’s Manager’s Amendment, which exhausts that route for passage.  

Congress has been preoccupied with funding the federal government, resulting in a (now typical) Continuing Resolution to fund the government at the current levels until December 20th. Given the dynamics of it being an election year and certain change of leadership, and the impacts of a lame duck session, it is quite difficult to predict exactly how EXPLORE may be able to pass this Congress.

One potential scenario is that it may be grouped in with a larger year-end lands package, which can be a good thing, but could be complicated given the varied political motivations of legislators post-election. With the strong bipartisan and bicameral support of EXPLORE we are hopeful that we can find a path to secure the passage of the recreation package this Congress regardless of the outcome of the election. 

One thing is for sure, there are no guarantees. Just as the summit is never guaranteed in climbing, no piece of legislation is a sure thing. We will continue to push forward and put the work in, one foot after another, and see it through.

---

Commit To Vote. Learn More Below.

PROTECT: Amity Warme and a YOSAR Climbing Ranger Weigh In on The Yosemite Credo

Its another Yosemite episode! And with some of the most in-the-know climbers, pro Amity Warme and Climbing Ranger Jesse McGahey, who weigh in on what’s been happening in Yosemite, both climbing wise, and in terms of community discussions about the future of climbing ethics and style there.

In this episode, we get to know crusher Amity Warme, and her perspectives on going ground-up on El Cap, how she’s recently been toeing the line between pushing her limits versus being in over her head, and how she views her role in the climbing community. We also chat about her ascent of Book of Hate (a 13d heinous stem corner ) and Pineapple Express (which is the fully free version of El Nino) last fall.

We also have Yosemite Climbing Ranger Jesse McGahey back on the pod, and chat about what’s been going on in Yosemite recently regarding rising temperatures, recent accidents due to using technology, the origins of the new Yosemite Climber’s Credo, and how a local climbing community came together to agree on shared values and guidelines. Amity also weighs in on the Yosemite Credo, and why she believes in the Credo and wants to help lead the way on the best practices for climbing in this iconic location.

Dive in to hear about some crucial conversations happening in one of the hubs of the climbing community.

---

---

Episode Resources:

Read the Yosemite Climber’s Credo

Watch Amity climb Book of Hate

Learn More about Amity Warme

Outdoor Alliance and American Alpine Club Working Together to Protect Rock Climbing Landscapes

Will Plantz trys hard as the sun fades on Johnny Cat in Indian Creek, within Bears Ears National Monument. Photo by AAC member Will McKay

Climbers have a meaningful relationship with the landscapes they love, and advocating for public lands is a critical piece of that relationship. Outdoor recreationists have a powerful connection to place, and that connection makes us a powerful force for conservation. Outdoor Alliance is a national coalition of outdoor recreation advocacy groups that American Alpine Club has been a part of for six years, and together, we work to protect public lands and waters and advocate for climbing and other outdoor recreation. The AAC is the largest community of climbers in the country, and is dedicated to advocating for climbing landscapes and resourcing climbers with essential climbing knowledge and rescue coverage.

Since Outdoor Alliance started ten years ago, the coalition has helped protect 40 million acres of public land and water, secured $5.1 billion in funding for the outdoors, and has converted hundreds of thousands of outdoor enthusiasts into outdoor advocates.

Here are some of important victories that the American Alpine Club (AAC) and Outdoor Alliance (OA) have notched together:

Passing the EXPLORE Act in the House

Climbing on the Diamond of Longs Peak. Photo by Louder Than Eleven

The EXPLORE Act is a first-of-its-kind package of outdoor recreation policy that has been a priority for Outdoor Alliance for many years; the package recently passed the House. It includes sections that will directly protect rock climbing experiences on public lands, a big priority for the AAC. 

The Protecting America’s Rock Climbing (PARC) Act is a significant piece of the EXPLORE Act, and has been a focus for the AAC, Access Fund, and the wider Outdoor Alliance coalition. The PARC Act is intended to ensure safe and sustainable access to rock climbing in designated Wilderness areas. It requires federal agencies to recognize recreational climbing as an appropriate activity in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964, which states that the placement, use, and maintenance of fixed anchors is appropriate, and ensures that a public comment period is made available to stakeholders prior to any final climbing management guidance being issued.

The AAC has also educated their members about the SOAR Act, joining the AMGA who is one of the principle long-time supportess of the SOAR Act. This is another piece of the EXPLORE Act which will streamline recreational permitting for outfitters and guides, benefiting other Outdoor Alliance members like The Mountaineers, Mazamas, and Colorado Mountain Club.  

Now that The House has voted to pass EXPLORE, the AAC and OA are advocating for the Senate to also get it across the finish line. Learn more and write your lawmakers about it here. 

Restoration of Bears Ears National Monument 

In 2018, the Trump Administration rolled back protections for the Bears Ears National Monument by more than 80% and Grand Staircase-Escalante by nearly half. Since then, the AAC and its partners at Outdoor Alliance have been continuously educating outdoor enthusiasts about the fight to preserve Bears Ears. This included a lawsuit led by Access Fund against the Trump administration, advocating for the monument to be restored, and participating in a public comment on a new management plan for the restored monument.

In 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration restored protections for Bears Ears and the Grand Staircase, which honored the voices of Indigenous communities, climbers, and conservationists alike. The coalition work led by Outdoor Alliance was hugely impactful in bringing outdoor recreationists together on this issue. The AAC is committed to keeping their members updated on future management plans and staying active in this ongoing discussion. The AAC will continue advocating for the role of climbing and responsible conservation by sharing their expertise on land management issues pertaining to climbing, and interfacing with land management agencies, the BLM and USFS, as well as other partners and local and national climbing organizations, to continue to refine the Bears Ears National Monument Draft Resource Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. 

Advocating for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Photo credit: Grey Satterfield

In 2020, the American Alpine Club, and another Outdoor Alliance coalition member, Winter Wildlands Alliance, joined forces to sue the Trump administration for making devastating changes to NEPA. For the past 50 years, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) has ensured that climbers and skiers have a voice in how the federal government manages our public lands. Whether it’s issues like climbing regulations in forest planning, balancing recreation with cultural preservation, or accounting for impacts to the climate from energy development on public lands—NEPA ensures that the federal government incorporates science and public outreach in the decision-making process. NEPA assures that the federal government operates with transparency and is held accountable for the decisions made on public lands. Having transparent decision making and accountability is particularly important to the climbing community as many of our cherished climbing areas are located on federal public lands across the country. The AAC and Winter Wildlands Alliance also petitioned the Biden administration in 2021 to take action to repair the law by restoring critical regulatory requirements that were removed in 2020.

The White House Council on Environmental Quality heard our requests, and began a two phase process to reverse the damaging 2020 changes to the regulations that implement NEPA. The final rule restores critical pieces of NEPA, and the AAC and other Outdoor Alliance members will continue to defend NEPA and ensure strong environmental protections and public comment periods. 

Amending the Colorado Recreational Use Statute (CRUS)

Photo credit: Grey Satterfield

Recreational Use Statutes across the United States protect private landowners from liability when they open up their land to the public for outdoor recreation. But a gap in Colorado’s Recreational Use Statute was causing landowners to feel insecure about the liability they faced, and therefore unwilling to accept the risk of keeping their land open to the public for activities like hiking, mountain biking, and climbing. This gap resulted in the closure of such Colorado hiking icons as Mount Lindsey, Mount Democrat, Mount Cameron, and Mount Lincoln. Outdoor Alliance and the the AAC both joined the Fix CRUS Coalition to activate Colorado recreationalists and advocate to update Colorado’s Recreational Use Statute. In 2024, the Fix CRUS Coalition successfully updated the Colorado Recreational Use Statute, when the CO Congress passed SB-58, ultimately strengthening protection for landowners, ensuring Colorado’s recreational opportunities that exist on private lands remain available to Colorado’s outdoor enthusiasts. 

Get Involved with Outdoor Alliance

Outdoor Alliance is a nonprofit coalition of organizations that includes American Whitewater, American Canoe Association, Access Fund, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, American Alpine Club, the Mazamas, Colorado Mountain Club, and Surfrider Foundation. For 10 years, Outdoor Alliance has united the human-powered outdoor recreation community to achieve lasting conservation victories. Our work has permanently protected 40 million acres of public land, secured $5.1 billion in funding for the outdoors, and has converted more than 100,000 outdoor enthusiasts into outdoor advocates. 

For more information, visit www.outdooralliance.org

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: [email protected]

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.

Characterizing the Effect of Elevation on Climate Records in Denali National Park, Alaska

A Research Grant Report

by: Inga Kindstedt, PhD Student in Earth and Climate Sciences (University of Maine); Liam Kirkpatrick, Dartmouth College '22, PhD Student in Earth and Space Science (University of Washington) 

*This report has been lightly edited for clarity

Our field camp on the summit plateau of Begguya (13,000 ft). Photo credit: Emma Erwin.

The American Alpine Club supports scientific endeavors in mountains and crags around the world through our Research Grants. Landscapes and ecosystems are a vital part of climbing. We believe in the importance of funding projects that enrich our understanding of these places, contribute vital knowledge to the management of climbing environments, and improve the health and sustainability of the climbing community.

---

Definitions:

• Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled from ice sheets or glaciers that are essentially frozen time capsules that scientists can use to reconstruct climate far into the past.
• Firn is snow at least one year old that has survived one melt season without becoming glacial ice.
• Isotopes are used to measure past climate properties

Ten miles south of North America's highest peak lies Begguya (Mt. Hunter), or "Denali's Child" in the Dena'ina language. To climbers, Begguya is known for its extremely committing and technical routes; only a handful of teams attempt it each season, compared to the hundreds on Denali. To our team of four researchers, Begguya is also known as the site where researchers recovered two surface-to-bedrock ice cores* in 2013.

The 2013 Begguya cores likely contain at least ten thousand years of the region's climate history, including records of snow accumulation, wildfire, and atmospheric pollution. Still, the interpretation of chemical signals in the ice can be challenging. This information is also supplemented by a firn* core recovered on the mountain's summit plateau in 2019.

Drilling and processing firn cores on the plateau. Photo credit: Emma Erwin.

In May of 2022, our team traveled to the Alaska Range with dual purposes: 1) to recover surface snow samples covering a span of elevations and 2) to recover another firn core from the Begguya summit plateau. We spent the first leg of our season on Denali's West Buttress, ascending to 11,200 ft. On the way, we collected surface snow samples for isotope* analysis. Our goal with these samples was to examine the relationship between elevation and the isotope signal recorded in the snowpack, thereby providing regional context for the isotope signal measured in the Begguya cores.

The climb also allowed us to acclimate before being transported via helicopter to the Begguya summit plateau (13,000 ft), where we spent the remaining two to three weeks of our season. Our objective on the plateau was to recover two 18m firn cores containing a climate record from the past several years, bringing the existing record to the present and allowing us to assess the impact of COVID-19 on atmospheric pollution recorded in the ice. 

Liam’s graduation day on the plateau. Photo credit: Emma Erwin.

During our time in the field, we successfully recovered both surface snow samples on the West Buttress and two firn cores on the plateau. We returned one core intact frozen to Dartmouth College for analysis and sampled the other in the field to transport back melted in vials. It was a remarkably successful field season—we even celebrated Liam's graduation from Dartmouth on the plateau! 

The Dartmouth Ice, Climate, and Environment Lab melted the intact core months after our return from the field. Some measurements (e.g., electrical conductivity, dust) were available in real-time as the ice melted. Both electrical conductivity and dust show distinct seasonal cycles, helping us develop a depth-age scale for the core. However, most of the meltwater was collected in vials, which have been sent to labs across the country to measure a wide range of chemical proxies.

We look forward to receiving back a variety of measurements, which will address topics ranging from pollution levels and sources to wildfire activity to plankton productivity in the North Pacific. 

Learn more about the impact of this research here. 

-Inga Kindstedt

---

Our fieldwork was conducted on the native lands of the Dena'ina peoples under a Denali National Park permit. It would not have been possible without the support of Denali National Park Rangers and Talkeetna Air Taxi. In addition to the financial support provided by the American Alpine Club, funding for this project was provided by the Sturgis Exploration Fund, the University of Maine Graduate Student Government, Maine Space Grants, the Dartmouth Outing Club, the John Sloan Dickey Center for International Understanding, and NOLS. 

Grant Spotlight: The Cornerstone Grant

PC: Grey Satterfield

In this article, writer Holly You Tung Chen captures the energy and effort that goes into sustainably developing a new bouldering area. Thanks to the AAC’s Cornerstone Grant, the Carolinas Climber’s Coalition was able to build trails and develop a parking lot for the McKinney Gap and Weaver Knob boulders. Dive in to hear about the process of discovering the boulders, sending and first ascents, and marshaling resources to responsibly open access to climbers everywhere.

Fixed Anchors: What's Next?

A Brief Update on What’s Next When it Comes to Fixed Anchors in Wilderness

Photo by Sterling Boin.

The climbing community is collectively holding its breath while we wait to find out what the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service are going to do with their proposed regulations on fixed anchors. Now that the public comment period is over, and the agencies are categorizing, and reviewing the thousands of comments, we wait. The gravity of these proposed regulations is not lost on any of us, and we want the agencies to take their time and appropriately consider the issue from all angles.

As we wait, many of you are wondering, “What’s next?” There are a few different paths this issue can take. After reviewing the public comments, the agencies could implement the regulations as written, making no changes at all. The agencies could consider the specific issues the public noted and modify the regulations. The agencies could do nothing and could delay implementation pending further consideration of the issue.

One move the agencies could take, which the AAC hopes they strongly consider, is a committee-based resolution. Utilizing the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), negotiated rulemaking process, or similar collaborative process, an appointed committee could tackle this complicated and nuanced issue head on. The committee could consist of agency representatives, wilderness advocates, climbing advocates, and any other appropriate groups, and would address fixed anchors and their usage in Wilderness. The AAC, Access Fund, Outdoor Alliance, AMGA, Wilderness Society, and many others made this recommendation to the agencies in our public comments and believe it to be a viable option for the agencies to address the proposed regulations through a collaborative process. The AAC is working to activate our volunteer network and climbing advocacy volunteers towards sharing their own thoughts on the potential of the FACA process.

In the interim, the AAC will communicate with the agencies, land managers, and legislators and keep the climbing community informed. If this issue is important to you, continue to contact your legislators and tell them why it matters. Stay tuned!

Fix CRUS: Help Protect Public Access to Recreation in Colorado!

Mining remains on Mount Sherman. Photo by Katie Sauter.

Policy Alert: Take Action!

As climbers, many of us are familiar with the often delicate and fragile access to climbing on private land. In Colorado, we now have the opportunity to pass legislation to ensure that our access to our beloved climbing areas is no longer so tenuous.

The crux of the matter is liability. The current Colorado Recreational Use Statute (CRUS) has private landowners concerned about the liability they take on when they allow the public to access their lands for recreation. The result has been a drastic number of closures or uncertainty for some of Colorado's most iconic recreational areas—including 14ers, attending the Leadville 100, and even climbing in Ouray Ice Park.

The AAC is part of the Fix CRUS Coalition, and we have worked alongside our partners as they crafted SB-58, a landmark bill that will fix the Colorado Recreational Use Statute (CRUS), ensure the balance of landowner rights, and protect public access to our state's natural wonders that are on private land. 

Now, we need your voice to turn this work into a reality. This impacts more than just Colorado climbers, but our entire outdoor family that utilizes Colorado lands. 

---

What SB-58 Does

This bill takes a carefully balanced approach to help limit landowner liability exposure while ensuring visitors are aware of non-obvious or man-made hidden hazards. SB-58 would do the following:

• Protect landowners who put a warning sign up with pre-approved language at the main access point from lawsuits related to most natural, agricultural, and mining-related hazards.

• Clarify that visitors must use a designated access point, stay on trails and within approved areas or they will be classified a trespasser for purposes of liability (not criminality).

• Update which recreational activities are protected by CRUS, to include rock climbing, ice climbing, trail running, backcountry skiing, rafting, and kayaking, etc.

---

Your Role: Advocate for Colorado's Outdoors

Your voice is crucial. We urge you to contact your Colorado State Senator and Representative and express your support for SB-58 asking them to support and cosponsor the bill.

SB 58 is a bipartisan bill sponsored by Senators Mark Baisley and Dylan Roberts, and Representatives Shannon Bird and Brianna Titone. This bill has passed out of committee with unanimous consent, and we just need voices from Colorado outdoors enthusiasts like you to push it over the edge and make it a reality! 

---

Whose Risk Is It?

How A Little-Known Statute Protects Climbing Access Across America

by Alex Derr

Interested in learning how liability concerns impact recreation across the country? Do a deep dive into recreation, private land, and liability with our article “Whose Risk Is It?”

The AAC's Official Stance on the Proposed Fixed Anchor Guidance from the NPS and USFS

Photo by Sterling Boin.

Thanks to the diligent and extensive research and work by our policy director, Byron Harvison, the AAC has submitted the following public comments to the National Park Service (NPS) and United States Forest Service (USFS) respectively, about their proposed fixed anchor guidance in Wilderness Areas, on January 30th, 2024. Read the full statements by clicking each button.

An Excerpt:

“The AAC would like the National Park Service (NPS) and United States Forest Service (USFS) to adopt guidance which affirms that fixed anchors are not installations prohibited by the Wilderness Act and allow agency land managers to administer their areas in a similar manner with what had been established under NPS Director’s Order #41. In lieu of publishing such guidance, the AAC would ask that the NPS and USFS convenes a committee pursuant to the negotiated rulemaking process, or similar collaborative process, in order to address the issue of fixed anchors in Wilderness and implement guidelines following a committee report. The AAC reiterates that the MRA process is not only a technically incorrect tool for the evaluation of fixed anchors, but cannot be practically implemented due to agency underfunding and limited staffing, and such a process will inevitably lead to management by moratorium.

“The AAC will remain committed to instilling the ethos of maintaining wilderness character, utilizing the best low-impact climbing techniques and practices, and staunchly supporting appropriate recreation in Wilderness. The AAC is ready and willing to assist the NPS and USFS to deliver on their dual mandate of conserving Wilderness characteristics while also ensuring the benefit and enjoyment of the Wilderness for the broader public.”

---

Cathedrals of Wilderness

Three First Ascents from the Historic Roots of Wilderness Climbing

By Hannah Provost

Photo by Sterling Boin.

“ Wilderness areas shall be devoted to the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use.”

— 4.3(b) of the Wilderness Act, 1964

With much ado about whether the NPS and USFS will prohibit fixed anchors in Wilderness areas, the AAC thought we’d lean into one of our strengths—the immense amount of climbing history at our fingertips, thanks to nearly 100 years of documenting climbing through the American Alpine Journal and the AAC Library. Climbers have been utilizing and advocating for the responsible and thoughtful use of fixed anchors (including pitons, slings, and bolts) in what are now designated Wilderness areas since before the passing of the Wilderness Act in 1964. These stories from before Wilderness as we know it shows that climbers were thinking with careful judgment about the wilderness experience, and sparingly using fixed gear—if it was in fact crucial for the ascent or descent at all. Since then, recreation, including climbing, has been a major tenet of what the Wilderness Act aims to protect. The question is: how do fixed anchors fit into that commitment moving forward? And how do Wilderness climbing’s roots inform that future?

Check out the climbs below to get a sense of the roots of Wilderness climbing.

---

Check out this map, powered by onX, which features Mountain Project data in conjunction with Wilderness Area boundaries, to help visualize how climbing across the country is impacted by this discussion.

---

Take Action: Share Your Voice on the Proposed Wilderness Fixed Anchor Guidelines

---

From the 1963 American Alpine Journal. Photos by Tom Frost, courtesy of North American Climbing History Archive.

The Salathé Wall, Yosemite Valley

Designated Wilderness in 1984

3500 ft (1061 m), 35 pitches, VI 5.9 C2, Robbins-Pratt-Frost, 1961

One of  the longest routes on El Cap—and full of infamous wide cracks and ledges to bivvy on, The Salathé Wall is one of the iconic climbs in the world. The route has you balancing up the Free Blast, and shimmying up chimneys until you’re climbing the impressively steep headwall that makes everyone gape at El Cap. If you’re a badass, you can free it at .13b. But in 1961 Royal Robbins, Chuck Pratt, and Tom Frost were just excited to get up the thing, placing minimal fixed gear. 

From the 1963 American Alpine Journal. Photo by Tom Frost, courtesy of North American Climbing History Archive.

In Royal Robbins’ 1963 report for the American Alpine Journal (AAJ), in which he recounts the first ascent done in 1961 and the first continuous ascent done in 1962, Robbins grapples explicitly with the bolting choices he and his team made as first ascensionists. Reflecting on the first continuous ascent, Robbins writes: “Tom [Frost] skillfully led the difficult section of the blank area where we had placed thirteen bolts the previous year. The use of more bolts in this area had been originally avoided by some enterprising free climbing on two blank sections and some delicate and nerve-wracking piton work. It would take only a few bolts to turn this pitch, one of the most interesting on the route, into a ‘boring’ walk-up.” Robbins and his peers were invested in finding those moments of “enterprising free climbing,” where they had to get creative and grit their teeth. Throughout his career, Robbins would have a lot of ambivalence about bolts—Salathé is a perfect example of that careful balance.

Though not directly or explicitly linked with his stance on fixed gear, it’s notable that Royal’s account of the continuous ascent of Salathé is intertwined with soulful reminiscing about nature. Robbins and his team considered Yosemite a special kind of remote nature, well before El Cap got a Wilderness designation with a capital W. Robbins ended his Salathé report: ”We finished the climb in magnificent weather, surely the finest and most exhilaratingly beautiful Sierra day we had ever seen…All the high country was white with new snow and two or three inches had fallen along the rim of the Valley, on Half Dome, and on Clouds Rest. One could see for great distances and each peak was sharply etched against a dark blue sky. We were feeling spiritually very rich indeed as we hiked down through the grand Sierra forests to the Valley.” This experience of vastness—of feeling the smallness of humanity within the quietude of nature, and that such experiences are enriching to the soul—is at the heart of what the NPS and USFS are trying to preserve, and which climbers like Robbins and all those who have followed him up El Cap have deeply loved about these places. 

Layton Kor on the first ascent of The Diagonal, 1963. Photo from Kor’s book, Beyond the Vertical, photographer unknown.

The Diagonal, Black Canyon of the Gunnison 

Designated Wilderness in 1976

2000’ (606m), 8 pitches, V 5.9 A5, Kor-McCarthy-Bossier, 1963

The Diagonal is in some ways an odd route to include here, because although it was important at the time, and excellent tales have been told about this first ascent, this route is rarely climbed today. It has the distinction of half a star on Mountain Project, and is known for the boldness required—which is particularly important to note in an area that already favors the bold. But we’re including it here precisely because of the climb’s historic nature, and how the first ascensionists—the magic team of Layton Kor, Jim McCarthy, and Tex Bossier—have articulated their thoughts on fixed anchors. 

As a historic climb, The Diagonal contains multitudes. Layton Kor, who was the driving force behind the first ascent, was certainly known to be a singular kind of person. There was no one quite like him. In Climb!, his contemporaries describe this towering figure in awed terms: “Of his more forceful characteristics, those who knew Kor well during his climbing years say that he frequently exhibited the qualities of a man possessed. A driving inner tension gnawed at him. His way of escaping from this sensation was to be active in a way which totally occupied his mind and body. His climbs, pushed to the limit of the possible, served this function well.” When Kor legendarily quipped, staring up at the crux pitch on The Diagonal, that he wasn’t a married man, and perhaps he should take Jim McCarthy’s lead for that reason, behind the glint in his eye was that tension and drive. Kor did take the lead on the “horror pitch,” taking six and a half hours to complete it—and it’s still noted as one of Kor’s hardest leads in his career. After all, the team was trying for glory—attempting to find Colorado’s first grade VI, though it would turn out to be another grade V. It remains an iconic moment in climbing’s rich history of contemplating and pushing past our agreed upon limits. 

Bossier indicated, in Kor’s book Beyond the Vertical, that the boldness that would come to characterize the climb was due in part to an intentional philosophical stance that the team made about the restrained use of fixed gear. Bossier writes: “The two major ethical dilemmas of the day were expansion bolts, and siege vs. alpine style ascents. We had taken oaths that the first grade six in Colorado deserved our commitment to a classic ascent. Despite knowing that we would pass through bands of rotten rock, we planned not to degrade our attempt with unnecessary bolting or extensive bolting.”

This sense of committing to good ethics and terms of engagement with the landscape is the backbone of the American idea of Wilderness, and embedded in the Wilderness Act, which defines Wilderness as “untrammeled,” “primeval,” and “undeveloped” landscapes, in which humanity is just a visitor. Though Kor, McCarthy, and Bossier weren’t meditating on nature in those explicit terms, their ascent too is wrapped in high-minded reflection on immersion in natural landscapes. After their wet bivvy, nature brought about a brush with awe that is so often what we seek in great, vast, wild adventures: “Next morning, as light became perceptible, we were engulfed in a dramatic whirlwind of dancing clouds. Shafts of light shone vertically upwards from the depths of the Canyon, while other masses swirled and skipped in wave patterns. We sat on our perches awed as light beams and rainbows mingled with mist. They were below us. They were with us—we could reach out and touch them. The clouds died as the power of the sun burned through and we began to take stock.”

No doubt waking up to this kind of light show—their position in the midst of it only possible because of this unique terrain—was part of the transformative experience of this climb. Bossier’s reflections demonstrate again that just as climbers of this time period were grappling with the appropriate boundary for the responsible use of fixed anchors, they were likewise attuned to how the landscapes they were climbing in shaped their experience. 

Topo of D1, the first ascent of The Diamond, featured in the September 1960 issue of Trail and Timberline. AAC Library Collection.

D1, The Diamond, Rocky Mountain National Park

Designated Wilderness in 2009

1,010 ft (308 m), 8 pitches, V 5.7 A4, Kamps-Rearick, 1960

Though climbing lore often focuses on tales of breaking the rules and going against the grain, there has been a long history of climbers working within land agency regulations in order to gain sustainable access. The story of The Diamond of Longs Peak, one of the most sought-after walls in the country, is one such example. According to the recounting of the first ascent, published in the 1961 AAJ: “In 1953 a party organized by Dale Johnson of Boulder announced its intention of attempting an ascent of this wall, but was refused permission by the National Park. Since then the Diamond has been ‘off limits’ to climbers. Being thus restricted from the climbing activity going on elsewhere in the country, it gradually assumed the distinction of being the most famous unclimbed wall in the United States.” So when Robert Kamps and David Rearick received permission from RMNP to attempt to climb The Diamond in August of 1960, all eyes were on them. 

September 1960 issue of Trail and Timberline, featuring an image from the first ascent of The Diamond. Cover photo by Al Moldvay of The Denver Post. From the AAC Library Collection.

The draw of the Diamond was certainly a sense of ultimate challenge. The altitude and remoteness of this striking wall was a key part of the adventure. Today, D1 is often overlooked, with more accessible lines like The Casual Route and Pervertical Sanctuary getting the most mileage, and lines like Ariana getting the most attention at the 5.12 grade. However, Mountain Project whispers suggest that well-rounded Diamond climbers consider it the best route on the Diamond. So unlike Kor’s The Diagonal, it’s historic and good climbing. 

Rearick and Kamp’s three day ascent “was one more dent in the concept of the impossible.” Like many Diamond climbers even today, they battled the weather and a waterfall dripping on their belays and bivvy. But this encroachment of water seemed to be a reminder that though they may be conquering the wall, they were but a small creature in a wilderness that was ultimately untamable. Like so many other climbers recreating in such extreme natural environments, the ascent was inextricably linked to moments of sublime quiet. “The night was clear and we watched the shadows from the moon creep stealthily along the slope of Lady Washington below us and across the shimmering blackness of Chasm Lake. We both managed to doze for a few hours. Since the temperature stayed above freezing, the waterfall continued all night, occasionally splashing us. The altitude at this point was about 13,700 feet.”

 Rearick and Kamps placed 4 expansion bolts in total—by hand, of course, which continues to be a requirement for new or replaced bolts in Wilderness—when all other ways of securing a belay were exhausted. This method and their tools had been explicitly reviewed and approved by the National Park beforehand, as a condition of their permission to attempt this famous feature. This incredibly important ascent was just the beginning of a revolution in climbing, as Godfrey and Chelton recount: “the concept of the impossible was seized roughly by the scruff of the neck and shaken up so as to be unrecognizable.”

***

As these three first ascents demonstrate, the roots of Wilderness climbing is often tied up with philosophies of restraint in use of fixed gear, spiritual connection with nature, pushing the limits of the sport, and prioritizing boldness without being unsafe.

That was Then…This is Now…

Much of the discussion around fixed anchors in Wilderness within the climbing community has simplified and erroneously associated the concept of fixed anchors with grid bolting or sport climbing. Some people are kicking around the idea that the only climbing that should happen in Wilderness is the purest kind, like “back in the day”—suggesting that absolutely no fixed gear was used “back in the day.” The history of these iconic Wilderness climbs shows that this narrative is full of misunderstandings. Even when the best climbers of the day refused to “degrade” their ascents with unnecessary bolting or fixed gear, they did apply these tools when necessary for safety. Evidently, Wilderness climbing’s roots lie in a philosophy of responsible and restrained use of fixed anchors to facilitate meaningful experiences and inspire advocates of Wilderness. Now the question is, what is Wilderness climbing’s future? 

You can help decide. Share your thoughts on the proposed fixed anchor guidance from the NPS and USFS before January 30, 2024. 

---

Resources:

This article was only possible thanks to the depth of resources from the American Alpine Club Library and historic records from the American Alpine Journal. Want to delve into our extensive historic climbing archives and guidebook library? Check it out. 

“The Salathé Wall.” American Alpine Journal. 1963.

“Salathe Wall.” Mountain Project.

Beyond the Vertical by Layton Kor

“The Diagonal.” Mountain Project.

Climb! Rock Climbing in Colorado by Bob Godrey and Dudley Chelton

Royal Robbins: The American Climber by David Smart

The Black: A Comprehensive Climbing Guide to Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park by Vic Zeilman

“The First Ascent of the Diamond, the East Face of Longs Peak.” American Alpine Journal. 1961.

“D1” Mountain Project.

Fixed Anchors in Wilderness 101

YOUR TOPO TO THE MOST IMPORTANT CLIMBING POLICY ISSUES HEADING INTO 2024

Paul and Marni Robertson on “Moonlight Buttress” (5.12d), Zion National Park, Utah. Photo by AAC member Jeremiah Watt.

We know climbing policy can be complicated. That’s why we’re giving you the bite-sized answers you need about the key policy topic right now: fixed anchors in Wilderness. Dive in to get a concise understanding of the lay of the land: What is the PARC Act? What does the National Park Service and Forest Service have to say about fixed anchors and climbing? How does it relate to each other? What can climbers do to share their perspective on Wilderness climbing? We break it down and give you an opportunity to share your thoughts on fixed anchors in Wilderness Areas.

---

Click and scroll to explore…

---

The AAC and Nina Williams have been advocating for climbers in DC!

Hear from Nina Williams about what it was like to advocate for the climbing community, and what motivates her to take action and use her passion for climbing to make a difference.

---

Take Action!

Share Your Voice on the Proposed Wilderness Fixed Anchor Guidelines

Photo by AAC member Andrew Burr. Scott Willson on the “East Buttress” (5.10b) of El Capitan, Yosemite National Park, California.

TAKE ACTION: Share Your Voice on the Proposed Wilderness Fixed Anchor Guidelines

Photo by AAC member Andrew Burr. Scott Willson on the “East Buttress” (5.10b) of El Capitan, Yosemite National Park, California.

Climbers have been staunch defenders and careful stewards of our wild landscapes in national forests and national parks since before the Wilderness Act of 1964. At the American Alpine Club, we want to ensure climbers' voices are heard on this issue. Let the National Park Service (NPS) and United States Forest Service (USFS) know where you stand on the responsible use of fixed anchors in Wilderness by submitting your comments to both agencies before January 16, 2024.

What are the recent Forest Service and National Park Service climbing guidance proposals?

These two separate and distinct climbing guidance proposals inform how these agencies would manage climbing within their respective areas. These proposals include a novel interpretation of fixed climbing anchors as prohibited, which reverses over 60 years of precedent in Wilderness located in national park and national forests, respectively.

What might these proposals mean for climbers?

By reclassifying fixed anchors (including slings, bolts, pitons, and ice screws) as prohibited installations in Wilderness and national forests, existing and new fixed anchors would require analysis and approval by the local land managers. This shift has the potential to impact historic climbing routes in iconic areas, as well as stifle future route development and fixed anchor maintenance for safety.

---

Ready to speak up for Wilderness climbing? 

Below is a template to get you started on your NPS and USFS public comment. Please personalize with your own experience!

“As a climber, I want to ensure the safe and responsible use of fixed anchors in [Wilderness/national forests] remains available to the climbing community. I respect and advocate for the responsible use of Wilderness areas and believe that fixed anchors can be a component of a sustainable Wilderness experience. Please revise your climbing guidance to reflect the practice and precedent of the last 60+ years–that fixed anchors for climbing can be used, replaced, and maintained in designated [Wilderness/national forest] areas.”

---

Want to learn more about the NPS + USFS proposals, the PARC act, and AAC’s recent actions on Capitol Hill?

Climbers of the Craggin' Classics: Smith Rock

PC: Kenny Gamblin

We’re interviewing a climber from each event in the Craggin’ Classic Series—Rumney, New River Gorge, Devil’s Lake, Smith Rock, Shelf Road, Moab, and Bishop—to take a deep look into the breadth of climbers that come to Craggins, and how they make the most of each unique event.

Read on to hear from climbers just like you, and their take on the things that matter to climbers.

---

Smith Featured Climber: Living Legend Alan Watts

Scroll to read Alan Watt’s take on the AAC’s advocacy event at Smith Rock…

---

2023 Craggin’ Classic Series Supported By

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, [email protected] or 303-384-0110

Yosemite National Park Media Contact
Scott Gediman, [email protected] or (209)742-3519

PROTECT: A Yosemite Climbing Ranger Weighs in on Style, Sustainability, and Safety

In this episode, we sit down with Head Yosemite Climbing Ranger Jesse McGahey to talk about the state of Yosemite climbing. We dig into what a climbing ranger’s job is like on a daily basis, and the knowledge Yosemite climbers should know that could prevent many accidents. We discuss the new splitter near Super Slide, as well as the need for, and initial success of the Big Wall Permit. We also cover an evolving conversation around style on El Cap and other classic big walls in the Park; camping and parking issues, and so much more.

Yosemite climbing has been such an inspiration for the climbing world, but in its current iteration, that experience is at risk. The AAC is excited to be partnering with Yosemite National Park to preserve that climbing experience for climbing generations to come. Learn more about these challenges to Yosemite, and how we will be partnering with the Yosemite Climbing Rangers, in this episode!

---

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.

Adventures with an Impact: Leveraging New Climbing in Arkansas

Photo courtesy of the AR Office of Outdoor Recreation.

An Interview with Arkansas’ Director of the Office of Outdoor Recreation, Katherine Andrews

AAC: Tell us about a moment of joy you’ve experienced being outside in Arkansas recently.

Katherine Andrews: It’s so hard to decide! I grew up in Arkansas hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, biking—anything and everything you can think of outside. Recently, we went trout fishing on the White River in July of 2022. I caught the largest fish I’ve ever caught, a 5 lb Rainbow Trout, with my dad and my husband in our boat. Not only was it cool to catch that big of a fish, but being there with family was even better. The White River is known for its trophy trout fish—we try to take a trip there every summer. 

AAC: Give us some background. Why was the Arkansas Office of Outdoor Recreation created? 

Katherine Andrews, Director of the Arkansas Office of Outdoor Recreation

KA: AR OREC was created by executive order in June of 2021. Arkansas saw incredible growth in outdoor recreation during Covid, some of the highest tourism figures we’d seen to date—and because of that, record investment of millions and millions of dollars in outdoor recreation infrastructure. We saw trails being built, land being conserved for recreation, record visitation…and because AR has a tourism tax, our tourism tax figures were the biggest they had been. We had seen this momentum, and all the states before us that had created these kinds of offices, and we realized we needed to capitalize on this momentum and all the excitement, all of the investment, and try to grow this sector of our economy even more. So therefore, our main mission is to leverage our state's natural assets to grow the outdoor recreation economy. 

AAC: Why would you say outdoor recreation is important in general?

KA: There are tons of benefits, not just for quality of life. We began to see that when the Bureau of Economic Analysis started studying the impact of outdoor recreation on our nation’s economy. The BEA report found benefits for areas with high outdoor recreation—like business attraction, workforce retention, public health and wellness, getting kids outside and off screens, and the conservation of our natural assets. A robust outdoor recreation industry isn’t just nice to have, it's necessary and deeply impactful.

AAC: Can you go into more specifics about AR OREC’s work? 

KA: There are two parts of the state that we serve. First, our industry partners: bike shops, boat manufacturers, river guides, duck lodges, outfitters, technology companies in the outdoors, any kind of outdoor recreation company you can think of. We help them access resources to grow, help them understand their barriers to growth, and help them overcome those barriers.

For example, we met recently with a group of marinas whose parking lots and launch ramps have been flooding a lot this year, so they can’t park or launch their boats. We’re helping them get funding earmarked to build high water launch ramps. This sets us apart from Fish and Wildlife, in that we are helping our outdoor rec industry, with barriers to their success, to in turn help them get more people outside. 

Second, our community partners: towns, counties, and advocacy groups that are hoping to support the growth and access to outdoor recreation. We help them understand the great benefits of outdoor rec on a local economy, and we help them access grants, resources, and other funding so they have more ability to leverage their natural assets and build infrastructure so that they can attract visitors and outdoor recreationists. 

Our main function is 1) connection and collaboration, or getting these groups connected to resources; and 2) promotion and awareness, by promoting and blasting about the outdoor opportunities in AR in general, and what our corporate partners are accomplishing. 

AAC: Tell us about the boom of mountain biking that has happened in Bentonville, AR, and how that story can be a model for creating economic impact through recreation?

KA: Bentonville is the home of the Waltons, who started Walmart. Tom and Steuart Walton are very personally interested in the outdoors in AR, and have utilized the Walton Family Foundation to invest in northwest Arkansas, especially in terms of outdoor recreation opportunities, in order to see NW AR thrive. 

In 2006, they started building mountain bike trails. This was not an overnight boom, 2006 to 2023 is a long time. But they started building a few miles of trail here and there. It was a combination of word of mouth, a little bit of promotion, and over time more and more people started riding, and in turn more trails got built. The Waltons have now created 600 miles of mountain bike trail in NW Arkansas, and over 1,200 miles state wide. The secret sauce in my opinion was that they were very intentional about creating a lot of beginner trails, in addition to the advanced more technical ones. 

You could replicate this model across any kind of outdoor recreation activity. For example, there is still a lot of undeveloped rock in Arkansas, and now the Waltons have been investing in slowly developing rock climbs. As the popularity of the area grows, there will be more investment in infrastructure, and in turn, the area will be able to sustainably handle more climbers. It’s sort of a chicken and the egg kind of scenario, since you need the infrastructure for people to come in the first place, but you likewise need climbers to show interest before you invest in infrastructure. 

Recreationalists, especially climbers, care very deeply about climate and conservation and keeping our wild places wild—so the good thing about creating more climbing infrastructure is that it will not only help the local tax base, but climbers in particular will help maintain the integrity of a place and help ensure its wild places stay that way.

Photo courtesy of the AR Office of Outdoor Recreation.

AAC: Are there any obstacles facing recreationists or the AR OREC? 

KA: Rather than obstacles, I would say there is opportunity. There is especially the opportunity to craft a really good land-use model for climbers and recreationists to interact with public land in a sustainable way. It is better to do it on the front end, instead of seeing a boom in climbing and then creating the plan. So there is more of an opportunity to work with the National Forest Service, for example, building better relationships with them, and working together on permitting and increased access. For us, our primary and overarching challenge is that there is not enough access to the outdoors, and the more that we can get sustainable access and new routes, the more we can grow this infrastructure and support that access. And all of this will help demonstrate the benefits of opening up access, which hopefully will head off any land-use conflicts that might arise. 

AAC: Most climbers are aware of 24 Hours of Horseshoe Hell. How do recreation-focused events like that impact rural economies?

KA: I don’t have the hard numbers, but those events can generate millions of dollars into a local economy. And yes, they occur once or twice a year, but that's still a lot of money that's flowing that wouldn’t be there otherwise. You have to have some level of infrastructure to have those events, but those events also show the need for increased infrastructure at the same time. We help fund a lot of events because it helps shine a greater light on existing opportunities. 

AAC: How would you pitch Arkansas as a destination to visit? 

KA: Arkansas has long been known as The Natural State for a reason—from our scenic views to countless outdoor recreation opportunities ranging from hiking, biking, and floating, to camping, motorcycling, and even hang-gliding. People have claimed we are the mountain biking capital of the world, as well as the trout capital of the world. And we are home to the first national river. But in addition to an incredible amount of hidden gems and natural resources, the people of Arkansas are incredibly welcoming. If you ask anyone, 9 out of 10 times they participate in outdoor activities, and since we pride ourselves on hospitality, we love to help each other out, and connect and introduce visitors to people in the community. Anytime we get visitors they always say it feels like family here. So not only is the climbing and other recreation in Arkansas an undervalued hidden gem, there is also this incredibly welcoming community here that a lot of people find very compelling. 

AAC: Finally, why should climbers partner with other recreationists? How could working with an Office of Outdoor Recreation benefit climbers?

KA: The more people you get outside the more likely they are to conserve land and care about protecting natural spaces. We all have a common goal in mind in getting outdoors and enjoying nature, the more we work together the more we can achieve that. 

There’s an African proverb I like to think about: “If you want to go fast, go alone, if you want to go far, go together.” Ultimately, we are all consumptive users of the outdoors, so we need to contribute to conserving it by partnering together. 

Photo courtesy of the AR Office of Outdoor Recreation.

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.

Protecting Pine Mountain

A Story from the AAC Policy Team

by Chris Morissette

PC: AAC member Nate Ptacek

Only an hour and a half drive from the coast, Pine Mountain is one of a few remaining sky islands in California, a unique geological formation that consists of isolated mountains surrounded by radically different lowland environments. At an elevation of 7,000’, it is one of the best summer bouldering, hiking, and camping destinations almost anywhere in central and southern California. However, its under attack. The Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project is the United States Forest Service’s (USFS) plan to cut trees and clear chaparral across 755 acres on the Pine Mountain ridgeline. This story covers why logging on Pine Mountain would be a disaster for the ecology of this area, why the area is so culturally important for climbers and local Tribes, and the legal action that the AAC is taking to address this.

---

Update on Pine Mountain Litigation

We are disappointed to learn that a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled against protecting a 755 acre tract of land on the top of Pine Mountain and Reyes Peak in the Los Padres National Forest area. The AAC, Los Padres ForestWatch, Keep Sespe Wild Committee, and Earth Island Institute—collectively represented by the Environmental Defense Center—joined up with the Center for Biological Diversity, California Chaparral Institute, and Patagonia Works—represented by the Center for Biological Diversity. Together, we filed a lawsuit in 2022 to halt a controversial logging and vegetation clearing project (The Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project) the U.S. Forest approved nearly two-years ago. The area, enjoyed by climbers, hikers, bikers and other outdoor enthusiasts, is one of the few remaining "sky islands" in California. The lawsuit alleged violations of NEPA, Roadless Area Conservation Rule, Endangered Species Act, and the National Forest Management Act. The AAC is working with their partners in the litigation and their legal team to determine next steps.

From the AAC Policy Desk

Photo by AAC member John Glassberg.

The past few months have been a time of transition for the AAC policy team. We are excited to announce that Byron Harvison has taken over for Taylor Luneau as the AAC policy director. Despite this transition, the small-but-mighty policy team continues to punch above its weight.

With the support from members and donors, we look forward to supporting climbers and protecting public land this year. Specifically, the AAC is concerned by an increasing number of land use restrictions and changes to liability practices that negatively affects guide services, volunteer organizations, and land managers.

Given the outsized effects land use and liability changes have on guiding companies, we have organized Summit Register 008 as the “Guide Issue” to further highlight these topics. Read “From the AAC Policy Desk” for a complete policy and advocacy update on these issues and more!

---

Sign Up for AAC Emails