Why These Draft Climbing Policies Matter

In January 2025, Congress passed the EXPLORE Act, which included the Protecting America's Rock Climbing (PARC) Act. Among other things, the law directed the Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to develop national guidance for recreational climbing on federal lands, including designated wilderness.

For decades, fixed anchors have existed in a gray area of federal policy. While millions of climbers have relied on fixed anchors for safe access to public lands, agency policies have often been inconsistent, unclear, or developed independently by individual land managers. The EXPLORE Act was intended to provide greater clarity by recognizing that recreational climbing - including the placement, use, and maintenance of fixed anchors - is an appropriate use of public lands when conducted in accordance with the Wilderness Act and other applicable laws.

Each of the four federal land management agencies has now released draft guidance for public review.

Overall, these proposals represent a significant step forward. All four agencies recognize recreational climbing as an appropriate use of public lands, and all acknowledge that existing climbing routes and fixed anchors have an important place in climbing management. Several agencies also explicitly recognize that fixed anchors are not considered "installations" under the Wilderness Act, an important clarification that resolves years of uncertainty.

However, the draft guidance also contains language that could unintentionally create barriers to climbers replacing aging climbing hardware or safely protecting a new route, and create inconsistent management from one forest, park, or field office to another.

Several drafts condition replacement of existing anchors on future Climbing Management Plans (CMPs) or other local planning documents. While management plans can be valuable tools, many climbing areas do not currently have CMPs, and some may not receive them for many years. Without clearer language, these provisions could be interpreted as preventing routine replacement of aging bolts or reasonably protecting new routes until a plan is completed, creating a de facto moratorium on hardware replacement despite Congress's clear intent to recognize continued maintenance of existing climbing routes.

Other provisions leave important terms undefined, and contain language that is hard to understand and highly interpretive. Modern hardware replacement often involves replacing obsolete or deteriorated equipment with safer, longer-lasting hardware, modestly relocating anchors into sound rock, or upgrading outdated anchor systems. Without clear definitions, these routine safety improvements could receive inconsistent treatment across federal lands.

These drafts are still proposals, and this public comment period is the opportunity for climbers, climbing organizations, land managers, and other stakeholders to help improve them before they become final agency policy. Each federal agency has individual proposals and comment forms.

Constructive comments can help ensure that the final guidance:

• clearly allows for routine maintenance work;

• recognizes proactive replacement of aging hardware before failures occur;

• allows modernization using current engineering and safety best practices;

• allows reasonable fixed protection when climbers establish new routes;

• provides consistent authorization for replacement across federal lands;

• avoids unintended barriers to maintaining the safety of existing climbing routes.

The agencies have already taken an important step by recognizing recreational climbing and fixed-anchor maintenance within national policy. Thoughtful public comments can help ensure that the final guidance fulfills the intent of the EXPLORE Act while providing the clarity needed for climbers and land managers alike.

Agencies are required to review and consider substantive comments, and well-reasoned feedback often results in clearer language, corrections, or changes that improve implementation. While form letters can demonstrate broad interest, personalized comments generally carry more weight because they explain how a proposal would affect real people and real climbing areas. The most effective comments are respectful, specific, and solution-oriented. Rather than simply expressing support or opposition, identify the exact provision that concerns you, explain why it could create unintended consequences, and suggest language or an approach that would better achieve the agency's goals.

If you have firsthand experience replacing aging hardware, stewarding climbing areas, or working with land managers, include those experiences - they help demonstrate why clarity matters. Thoughtful comments that acknowledge the many positive aspects of these drafts while offering constructive recommendations are far more likely to influence the final guidance than comments that simply criticize the proposals.

Summary of major concerns:

Any and all restrictions on climbing and fixed anchor use should NOT be implemented until a CMP (or other management plan) is finalized. Climbing and fixed anchor use should continue as has been historically practiced in each land management unit until a CMP for the area is finalized.

• Forest Service: Clarify that routine replacement of existing hardware is broadly authorized, independent of Climbing Management Plans, and define replacement to include modernization (one-for-one does not mean replacing a 1/4" buttonhead gets another 1/4" bolt etc.).  Power (motorized) drills should be broadly authorized for bolt placement/replacement and should not be dependent on the existence of a CMP for the district.

• BLM: Remove the numerical "5 bolts within 100 feet" threshold and replace it with a more holistic assessment of wilderness impacts. Something like: "fixed anchors are essential pieces of a climbers safety system that allow them to safely and sustainably access vertical terrain, but they should be used sparingly in wilderness climbing areas. Avoid placement when natural protection is available and do not create high density "sport" style routes in order to preserve wilderness character. Travel on durable surfaces whenever possible during approaches to avoid resource degradation"

• National Park Service: Clarify that "one-for-one replacement" includes modernization and encourage parks to preauthorize routine replacement rather than requiring permits.

• Fish & Wildlife Service: Streamline the planning and authorization process for maintenance of existing routes, including specifying that routine replacement of existing hardware is broadly authorized, while providing greater clarity on replacement and stewardship.

Detailed concerns and links to documents/comment forms: