Rock climbing could change to protect the wild — but will that make it more dangerous?

What does it mean for land to be “wild?”

It’s a question that federal land managers have thought about since the Wilderness Act of 1964, which defined wilderness as areas “untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

Our national parks and public lands have visitor centers, fire lookouts, and other approved "installations" that help us enjoy the wild safely. But just what defines an installation has become the center of a recent debate between rock climbers and conservationists.

In the past, climbers have enjoyed a relatively unrestricted use of fixed climbing anchors, small bolts that are frequently installed while establishing new climbing routes or are quickly drilled for safety reasons, like falling rocks or inclement weather.

But recently proposed guidance from the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) would create a new system for cataloging and permitting fixed anchors on federal land. If adopted, it could mean that climbers would need permission from parks before installing or replacing fixed anchors.

The proposed guidance is called "Reference Manual 41" and builds upon climbing guidance from 2013 called "Director's Order 41."

RELATED: What'd you do on summer vacation? Oh, just scaled Washington's 100 highest peaks

That directive established climbing as a legitimate recreational activity within national parks and wilderness areas, including the limited use of fixed anchors. Reference Manual 41 takes the directive a step further, classifying fixed anchors as "installations" under the Wilderness Act, in turn giving land managers the authority to regulate and supervise their use.

"Installations" include man-made structures left within a park or wilderness boundary after human recreation, and other examples include restrooms, fire lookouts, and visitor centers. The National Park Service and Fire Service are both submitting their own proposed policy changes, which mirror each other closely.

Cynthia Hernandez, a spokesperson for the National Park Service, said the changes are being proposed after climbing has grown nationwide, but climbing regulations have not.

"This isn't about managing this one particular tool in itself," she said. "It's about balancing the activity, which is climbing — and such a popular and appropriate activity in many national parks — but in wilderness areas, we do need to have a consistent approach to managing fixed climbing equipment."

Some of the complaints about climbing include the visual impacts of equipment and the damage to local flora. Native tribes across the country also have numerous sacred sites in National Parks and on federal lands, many of which coincide with climbing routes.

The National Park Service and Fire Service collected public comments on the proposal and have been speaking with stakeholders about the current impact of climbing anchors and how federal land managers can play a bigger role in cataloging and standardizing their use.

RELATED: From wildfires to tropical storms, Pacific Crest Trail hikers face increasing climate extremes

At the core of new guidance is a “minimum requirements analysis." To establish new routes, propose new anchors, or recommend the replacement of old anchors, climbers will need to submit a request to the appropriate land manager.

Hernandez said the process will look at two things: if a particular climb and its associated bolts are an appropriate activity for an area of wilderness, and the minimum number of bolts needed to preserve the "wilderness character" of a region (the NPS has set criteria defining "wilderness character.")

"It also requires authorities that are executing this to undertake an inventory and analysis of the anchors that are in place — but they have to do an analysis of whether that is the minimum tool or minimum impact required to meet a legitimate wilderness need," said Matt Perkins, the executive director of the Washington Climbers Coalition.

The bolts used for fixed anchors are 3-4 inches long and close to half an inch wide. Perkins said that while they offer a critically important safety option, they aren't always needed for a climb through the use of removable hardware or a loop of sling around a rock horn (that method is also considered a "fixed anchor," though it doesn't use a drilled bolt).

"Where there's some disagreement sometimes is whether or how many volts may be necessary, as opposed to the gear that's more readily removable," Perkins said. "Generally, where there's a crack, we can use the gear that is more readily removed."

A top concern from climbers is that reclassifying fixed anchors as installations will slow the use of climbing routes and disincentivize climbing as an activity, which he says is experiencing a boom in recent years. In addition, delays in anchor surveys could mean old anchor bolts take longer to be replaced, adding a safety risk.

"We just don't know what they're equipped to do," Perkins said, "We fear that there will be accidents and serious accidents, including possible deaths that would result."

Perkins said that previous orders did lead to some anchors being removed on federal lands, but the fallback position seemed to approve of their use. In contrast, he says the newly proposed guidance appears to flip that presumption on its head, the default position being the disuse of anchors unless otherwise permitted.

All the same, he says climbers are not opposed to regulation.

"If it turns out we need to do some kind of permit process before installing new routes, I think we can probably work with that. It's just this process doesn't seem like it's very well thought out."

The USFS and NPS invited the public to comment on the change back in November, and the deadline for commenting passed, after an extension, on Jan. 30.

The U.S. Forest Service alone received more than 8,000 comments.

"As a former Forest Service employee who often worked within Wilderness areas, fixed climbing hardware (including bolts) fits within my vision of what a Wilderness area is," wrote a commenter opposed to the new guidance.

"As another voice of someone who frequently relies on fixed anchors and bolts for my personal safety, I would advise the consideration that restricting the implementation of fixed hardware will make climbing significantly more dangerous," wrote another against the reclassification.

RELATED: A ‘haunted hike’ brings Washington disaster to life

There were also comments in support of limiting fixed anchors.

"Permanent fixed climbing anchors, like bolts and pitons permanently pounded into wilderness rock faces, diminish an area's wild character," read one comment.

"Impacts include unauthorized trails, trampled and mutilated vegetations, rock faces scrubbed free of lichens and plant life, and interference of nesting habitats and wildlife. Climbing also interferes with the aesthetic quality of the rock, such as white and colored chalk, shiny bolts, and colored webbing seen from long distances," wrote another.

Wilderness Watch, a conservation organization based in Montana, submitted three comments on the U.S. Forest Service proposal.

"The distinction between all other 'structures' or 'installations' and how they're administered, and the issue with fixed climbing anchors, is that all of those other things are administered by the agency," said George Nickas, Wilderness Watch's executive director. "The agency determines that they need those structures or installations there in order to administer the wilderness."

In contrast, he sees the ability of climbers to request the use of fixed anchors — and for managers to approve them — as giving them an exception other activities don't have.

"What the Forest Service and the Park Service are suggesting in their new guidelines is that they can exempt a certain group of recreationists from the prohibition on installations," Nickas said. "They're leaving it up to the climbers."

While federal land managers can build structures like restrooms, visitors centers, and on-trail installations, he says allowing climbers to suggest fixed bolts runs against the philosophy of wilderness, which recreationists should meet "...on its own terms and not try to modify it to make it more amenable for recreation."

Going forward, Wilderness Watch is concerned that making exceptions for one group of recreationists opens the door for more exceptions in the future, such as motorized activities or other structures currently barred under the Wilderness Act.

"They'll definitely crack open the door."

In the backdrop of the agencies' process are two pieces of federal legislation that would protect climbing anchors. Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act, and America's Outdoor Recreation Act of 2023. One bill is in an amendment rewrite and the other is waiting to be heard on a congressional floor.

With public comments from climbers, tribes, and conservationists in hand, land managers will now consider the proposal – and any changes driven by feedback – before making a final decision on climbing guidance.

Listen to the full Soundside segment by clicking "play" on the audio icon at the top of this story.